Tag Archives: 2008

Renner, Patrick vs. Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H089005-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-12-23
Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully
Outcome The ALJ granted the Respondent's Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissed the Petition. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to follow the mandatory dispute resolution procedures in the CC&Rs, which required binding arbitration after mediation failed.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Patrick Renner Counsel —
Respondent Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association Counsel Kurt M. Zitzer; Kevin T. Minchey

Alleged Violations

Article 15

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Respondent's Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissed the Petition. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to follow the mandatory dispute resolution procedures in the CC&Rs, which required binding arbitration after mediation failed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to submit the dispute to binding arbitration as required by CC&Rs Article 15.5.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Follow Dispute Resolution Provisions

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to enter mediation. The ALJ found that mediation occurred but failed, and under CC&Rs Article 15.5, the Petitioner was required to submit the dispute to binding arbitration rather than filing a Petition with the Department.

Orders: Respondent's Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted; Petition is dismissed; Petitioner ordered to comply with Article 15 (Arbitration).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article 15
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089005-BFS Decision – 204829.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:35:25 (77.2 KB)

08F-H089005-BFS Decision – 204829.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:46 (77.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Renner v. Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding the dispute between Petitioner Patrick Renner and Respondent Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association (Case No. 08F-H089005-BFS).

The core of the dispute centers on the enforcement of the dispute resolution provisions outlined in the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Following a previously settled petition, the Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to engage in mediation as required. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while mediation was attempted and ultimately failed, the Petitioner bypassed the contractually mandated next step—binding arbitration—by filing a second administrative petition.

The ALJ concluded that the Respondent had complied with the CC&Rs, while the Petitioner had not. Consequently, the Respondent’s Motion to Compel Arbitration was granted, and the Petition was dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Entity

Detail

Case Number

08F-H089005-BFS

Petitioner

Patrick Renner

Respondent

Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Brian Brendan Tully, Administrative Law Judge

Date of Decision

December 23, 2008

——————————————————————————–

Procedural History and Background

The Initial Petition

The current case represents the second petition filed by Patrick Renner against the Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association. The first petition was resolved through a settlement agreement where both parties agreed to utilize the dispute resolution provisions found in the community’s CC&Rs. That initial case was dismissed following the settlement and reached finality as neither party appealed the decision to the Superior Court.

The Second Petition

The Petitioner filed the instant case with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, alleging that the Respondent failed to follow the CC&Rs’ dispute resolution provisions following the closure of the first case. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed the Respondent refused to enter into mediation.

In response, the Respondent filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on November 21, 2008. Following a prehearing conference on December 10, 2008, the ALJ evaluated whether the parties had adhered to their contractual obligations.

——————————————————————————–

Contractual Framework: Article 15 Dispute Resolution

The conduct of the parties is governed by Article 15 of the CC&Rs, which stipulates that all claims must be resolved exclusively through specific procedures. The hierarchy of resolution includes:

1. Negotiation (Article 15.2): The parties must first attempt to resolve disputes through negotiation within a prescribed timeframe.

2. Mediation (Article 15.4): If negotiation is unsuccessful, the dispute must be submitted to mediation under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) or another mutually agreed-upon independent mediator.

3. Binding Arbitration (Article 15.5): If mediation fails to resolve the dispute, the claimant is required to submit the matter to binding arbitration.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of the Dispute Resolution Process

The evidence presented during the proceedings established a timeline of the parties’ attempts to resolve their conflict:

• Failure of Negotiation: The parties were unable to reach an agreement through initial negotiation.

• Engagement in Mediation: The parties moved to mediation, agreeing to use Marc Kalish as a private mediator. To reduce costs, the parties permitted the mediator to participate via telephone.

• The Mediation Impasse: A tentative settlement was reached during mediation; however, the Respondent subsequently refused to execute the written agreement. The Respondent then requested a second mediation session.

• Mediator’s Conclusion: Mediator Marc Kalish informed the parties that further mediation efforts would be a “waste of the parties’ money and [his] time,” effectively declaring the mediation process a failure.

——————————————————————————–

Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge reached the following conclusions based on the sequence of events:

• Compliance of Respondent: The Respondent was found to have complied with the requirements of Article 15. The refusal to sign a tentative agreement and the subsequent failure of the mediation process did not constitute a breach of the CC&Rs.

• Failure of Petitioner: The ALJ determined that the Petitioner was the party who failed to comply with the CC&Rs. Rather than proceeding to binding arbitration as required by Article 15.5 after the mediation failed, the Petitioner improperly filed a second petition with the Department.

• Prevailing Party Status: Because the Petitioner did not adhere to the mandatory contractual procedures, he was not deemed the prevailing party. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), the Petitioner is not entitled to the reimbursement of filing fees.

——————————————————————————–

Final Administrative Order

The Office of Administrative Hearings issued the following orders:

1. Motion to Compel Arbitration: The Respondent’s motion is granted. The parties are directed to proceed to binding arbitration pursuant to Article 15.5 of the CC&Rs.

2. Mandatory Compliance: The Petitioner is ordered to comply with all provisions of Article 15 of the CC&Rs regarding the current dispute.

3. Dismissal: Case No. HO-08-9/005 (Docket No. 08F-H089005-BFS) is dismissed.

Appeal Rights

This order constitutes the final administrative decision and is not subject to a request for rehearing. Any party wishing to appeal must file a complaint in the Superior Court within 35 days of the service of this decision, as per A.R.S. § 12-904(A). Service is considered complete upon personal delivery or five days after the decision is mailed to the party’s last known address.

Study Guide: Renner v. Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Patrick Renner and the Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association. It focuses on the application of dispute resolution provisions within community association governing documents and the procedural requirements for legal recourse in such matters.

Short-Answer Quiz

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative case, and what is the nature of their relationship?

2. What was the resolution of the first petition filed by the Petitioner?

3. On what grounds did the Petitioner file the second petition against the Respondent?

4. According to Article 15.2 of the CC&Rs, how must claims between the parties be resolved?

5. What does Article 15.4 of the CC&Rs dictate regarding the selection of a mediator?

6. Under what conditions does Article 15.5 require a claimant to submit to binding arbitration?

7. Who was selected as the private mediator for the parties’ second dispute, and why did he participate via telephone?

8. Why did the mediation process between the Petitioner and Respondent ultimately fail?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final ruling regarding the second petition and the Respondent’s motion?

10. What are the specific requirements for a party wishing to appeal the final administrative decision?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Patrick Renner, designated as the Petitioner, and the Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association, designated as the Respondent. This is a legal dispute between an individual homeowner and his homeowners association regarding the enforcement of community rules and procedures.

2. The first petition was resolved through a settlement agreement between the parties, the essential terms of which were read into the record. Because neither party appealed the decision to the Superior Court, the case reached finality and was dismissed.

3. The Petitioner filed the second petition alleging that the Respondent failed to follow the dispute resolution provisions of the CC&Rs after the first case closed. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed that the Respondent failed to enter into mediation as required.

4. Article 15.2, titled “Agreement to Resolve Certain Disputes Without Litigation,” states that the parties contractually agreed that all claims must be resolved exclusively through the procedures set forth in Article 15. This mandates that the parties use the specific internal dispute resolution framework rather than proceeding directly to outside litigation.

5. Article 15.4 provides that if negotiation fails, a party may submit the dispute to mediation under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Alternatively, the parties may use an independent mediator or mediation service selected by mutual agreement.

6. Article 15.5 stipulates that if the mediation process is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, the claimant is then required to submit the matter to binding arbitration. This represents the final step in the internal dispute resolution hierarchy defined by the CC&Rs.

7. The parties mutually agreed to use Marc Kalish as their private mediator. He participated via telephone to accommodate the parties and save them the personal appearance costs associated with traveling to Flagstaff.

8. Although a tentative settlement was reached, the Respondent refused to execute the written agreement and demanded a second mediation session. The mediator, Mr. Kalish, subsequently informed the parties that further mediation would be a waste of time and money, effectively ending the process.

9. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and ordered the Petitioner to comply with Article 15.5 of the CC&Rs. Consequently, the second petition was dismissed because the Petitioner had failed to pursue binding arbitration before filing with the Department.

10. A party must file a complaint to review the final administrative decision within thirty-five days of the decision being served. Service is considered complete upon personal delivery or five days after the decision is mailed to the party’s last known address.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Hierarchy of Dispute Resolution: Analyze the progression of dispute resolution steps mandated by Article 15 of the CC&Rs. Explain why the Petitioner’s decision to file a second petition with the Department was deemed a failure to comply with this hierarchy.

2. The Role of Mediation in Contractual Disputes: Discuss the mediation process as described in the text, including the roles of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and private mediators. How does the text characterize the limitations of mediation in ensuring a resolution?

3. Procedural Finality and Appeals: Examine the legal standards for finality in administrative decisions as presented in the case. What are the consequences of failing to appeal a decision, as seen in the transition between the first and second petitions?

4. Contractual Obligations vs. Administrative Filing: Evaluate the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to file a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety and his contractual obligations under the CC&Rs. Why did the CC&Rs take precedence in this ruling?

5. The “Prevailing Party” and Financial Responsibility: Discuss the legal reasoning behind denying the Petitioner’s request for filing fee reimbursement. How is the status of “prevailing party” determined in this administrative context according to A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A)?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

• A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 / 41-2198.02(A): Arizona Revised Statutes governing the filing fees and the reimbursement of those fees for parties involved in administrative hearings regarding homeowners associations.

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears arguments, and issues binding decisions or orders.

• American Arbitration Association (AAA): A national organization that provides alternative dispute resolution services, including mediation and arbitration.

• Binding Arbitration: A formal dispute resolution process where an impartial third party makes a final, legally enforceable decision that the parties are contracted to follow.

• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions): The governing documents of a community association that outline the rules, regulations, and contractual obligations of the members and the association.

• Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety: The state agency responsible for overseeing certain aspects of homeowners association disputes in this jurisdiction.

• Mediation: A collaborative process where a neutral third party (mediator) assists disputing parties in reaching a voluntary agreement.

• Motion to Compel Arbitration: A legal request asking the court or judge to order a party to honor a contractual agreement to resolve a dispute through arbitration rather than litigation or administrative petitions.

• Petitioner: The party who initiates a legal or administrative action by filing a petition.

• Prevailing Party: The party in a legal proceeding that succeeds on the main issues and is often entitled to certain recoveries, such as filing fees.

• Respondent: The party against whom a legal or administrative action is filed.

• Settlement Agreement: A voluntary agreement between parties to resolve a dispute, often resulting in the dismissal of pending legal actions.

When Mediation Fails: 4 Hard Truths About HOA Legal Battles

1. Introduction: The “Forever Dispute” Trap

There is a specific, grinding frustration reserved for homeowners who believe they have reached the end of a legal battle, only to find themselves trapped in a loop. It is the “forever dispute”—a scenario where a settlement is reached, yet the conflict continues to evolve until the “resolution process” itself becomes the new battlefield.

In the case of Renner vs. Ponderosa Trails Unit 8 Community Association, we see a classic cautionary tale of a strategic tactical error. The Petitioner sought justice through the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, only to have his case dismissed. The surprising reality is that the Petitioner actually helped build the trap that snared him: by settling his first petition and agreeing to follow the community’s private dispute resolution rules, he effectively locked the door to administrative relief for all future related claims.

2. Takeaway 1: Even Professional Mediators Have a Breaking Point

In this matter, the parties attempted to resolve their issues through a private mediator, Marc Kalish. In a clear attempt to manage resources, the parties even agreed to let Mr. Kalish participate via telephone to save the costs of a personal appearance in Flagstaff. However, after a “tentative settlement” was reached, the Respondent (the HOA) refused to sign the written agreement and demanded a second mediation session.

When the mediator was asked to continue, he recognized that the process had reached a terminal dead end. He provided a blunt assessment that serves as a warning to anyone over-relying on mediation:

From a strategic standpoint, mediation is a tool for assistance, not a guarantee of resolution. Even when one party is perceived as obstructive, a mediator has no power to force a signature; they can only signal when the process has shifted from a productive negotiation to a total drain on resources.

3. Takeaway 2: The Contract is King (The Power of CC&Rs)

The legal foundation of this dismissal rested on Article 15 of the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Article 15.2 dictates that all claims shall be resolved “exclusively” in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Article.

This is where the Petitioner’s earlier settlement became a “contractual bottleneck.” Because the first petition was dismissed based on a settlement where the parties agreed to the CC&R process, those terms became the exclusive path forward. By signing the deed to a home in an HOA, a homeowner often unknowingly signs away their right to go directly to a state department or court. From a strategic perspective, this is a total forfeiture of leverage; you are bound to a private resolution ladder that must be climbed one rung at a time, regardless of how much you may prefer a judge’s intervention.

4. Takeaway 3: You Can’t Skip the “Binding Arbitration” Step

The primary error in this case was the Petitioner’s failure to recognize a “condition precedent.” The CC&Rs established a clear, mandatory hierarchy:

• Article 15.4 (Mediation): If negotiation fails, parties move to mediation.

• Article 15.5 (Binding Arbitration): If mediation is unsuccessful, the claimant shall submit the dispute to binding arbitration.

After mediation failed following the HOA’s refusal to sign the tentative agreement, the Petitioner made a fatal tactical move: he bypassed Article 15.5 and filed a second petition with the Department. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that following the exact sequence of a dispute resolution clause is not optional. You cannot return to an administrative agency simply because the mediation phase was frustrating. Arbitration was not just a suggestion; it was a prerequisite for a valid claim.

5. Takeaway 4: The Losing Side of “Winning”

The final ruling by Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully resulted in a total dismissal of the case. While the Petitioner viewed the HOA as the party obstructing the settlement, the Judge found that the Respondent had complied with the dispute resolution provisions, while the Petitioner had not.

The consequences were both procedural and financial:

• Motion to Compel Arbitration: The Judge granted the HOA’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, legally forcing the Petitioner back into the very private process he had spent months trying to escape.

• Lack of Fee Reimbursement: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), only a “prevailing party” is entitled to an order requiring the opposing party to pay their filing fees. Because the Petitioner was not the prevailing party, he was denied any reimbursement for the costs of filing a petition that was ultimately dismissed.

The irony is sharp: the Petitioner turned to the Department to compel the HOA to act, but the legal system instead compelled the Petitioner to return to a private arbitration table dictated by the HOA’s own governing documents.

6. Conclusion: The Final Pivot

The Renner case serves as a masterclass in the weight of private contract obligations. For homeowners and associations alike, it demonstrates that “dispute resolution” is a rigid contractual framework, not a flexible suggestion. Once you agree to a specific hierarchy of remedies, that path becomes your only map.

As we evaluate the balance between private CC&Rs and the desire for judicial oversight, we must ask: In the pursuit of a “settlement,” are you inadvertently signing away your future access to the public justice system? In the world of HOAs, the “day in court” you were promised may very well be a mandatory, private, and costly seat at an arbitrator’s table.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Patrick Renner (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Kurt M. Zitzer (Respondent Attorney)
    Meagher & Greer, P.L.L.P.
  • Kevin T. Minchey (Respondent Attorney)
    Meagher & Greer, P.L.L.P.

Neutral Parties

  • Michael G. Wales (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Vacated the scheduled hearing; ordered prehearing conference
  • Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed the decision
  • Marc Kalish (Mediator)
    AAA
    Private mediator agreed upon by parties
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on transmission
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on transmission

Hogue, Thomas vs. Shadow Moutain Villas Condominiums

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H089011-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-12-22
Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully
Outcome Default judgment entered against Respondent for failure to answer. ALJ found Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1247 and CC&Rs by failing to maintain common element drainage, causing flooding. Petitioner prevailed on the merits and was awarded filing fees and a civil penalty was imposed. Petitioner's claim for monetary damages for repairs was denied due to lack of administrative jurisdiction.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $2,500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas Hogue Counsel —
Respondent Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1247

Outcome Summary

Default judgment entered against Respondent for failure to answer. ALJ found Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1247 and CC&Rs by failing to maintain common element drainage, causing flooding. Petitioner prevailed on the merits and was awarded filing fees and a civil penalty was imposed. Petitioner's claim for monetary damages for repairs was denied due to lack of administrative jurisdiction.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain common elements (drainage)

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to maintain proper drainage of Common Elements, resulting in flooding of Petitioner's unit. Respondent failed to answer the petition.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1247 and Article 5 of the CC&Rs; reimburse Petitioner's $550.00 filing fee; pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1247
  • CC&Rs Article 5

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089011-BFS Decision – 204771.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:36:23 (79.9 KB)

08F-H089011-BFS Decision – 204771.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:09 (79.9 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Thomas Hogue vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums

Executive Summary

On December 22, 2008, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Brendan Tully issued a Decision on Default against Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums (Respondent) regarding a petition filed by Thomas Hogue (Petitioner). The dispute centered on the Respondent’s failure to maintain common elements and drainage systems, which resulted in significant flood damage to the Petitioner’s unit.

Due to the Respondent’s failure to file a timely answer to the petition, the ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner by default. The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee, and comply with state statutes and community governing documents. While the Petitioner incurred over $1,400 in repair costs, the ALJ noted that the administrative forum lacks the jurisdiction to award compensatory damages, which must be sought in civil court.

Case Background and Allegations

The matter (No. 08F-H089011-BFS) was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition submitted by Thomas Hogue on approximately October 20, 2008.

Core Grievances

The Petitioner alleged that on July 6, 2008, the Respondent committed specific acts or omissions that violated condominium regulations:

• Failure to Maintain: The Respondent failed to maintain drainage systems and common elements.

• Property Damage: This failure caused the Petitioner’s condominium to suffer significant flood damage during the monsoon season.

• Statutory Violations: The Petitioner cited a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1247, which pertains to the maintenance of condominiums.

Procedural Default and Legal Findings

The decision was reached primarily through a “Default,” as the Respondent failed to engage in the administrative legal process.

Timeline of Default

• Notification: Department staff mailed a Notice of Petition to the Respondent on approximately October 2, 2008.

• Receipt: On October 30, 2008, the Department received a certified mail receipt signed by the Respondent, confirming they had received the notice.

• Failure to Respond: Per A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), the Respondent was required to submit a written response within 20 days. No response was filed.

• Legal Admission: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F), the failure to file an answer is legally deemed an admission to the factual allegations in the petition.

Statutory and Document Violations

The ALJ concluded that the Respondent was in violation of both state law and the specific governing documents of the community:

• A.R.S. § 33-1247: General statutory requirement for condominium maintenance.

• Article 5 of the CC&Rs: Specifically covers “Condominium Maintenance and Repair,” requiring the association to maintain common elements to avoid issues such as flooding.

Analysis of Damages and Aggravating Factors

The ALJ’s decision highlighted several factors that weighed against the Respondent, as well as the limitations of the administrative forum regarding financial recovery.

Financial Impacts to Petitioner

The Petitioner documented specific financial losses resulting from the flooding:

• Repair Costs: $1,433.05 spent on the interior of the unit.

• Compensatory Damages: $500.00 claimed by the Petitioner.

Jurisdictional Limitation: The ALJ explicitly stated, “This administrative forum does not permit an award to Petitioner for damages.” The Petitioner was advised that claims for repair costs and compensatory damages must be addressed in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

Aggravating Factors

The ALJ identified three “strong matters in aggravation” regarding the Respondent’s conduct:

1. The failure to maintain Common Elements that led to the flooding.

2. The failure to ameliorate the damage caused to the Petitioner’s unit.

3. The failure to respond to the legal Petition.

Final Order and Compliance Requirements

The ALJ issued a structured order to penalize the Respondent and ensure future compliance with state and community regulations.

Requirement

Recipient

Amount

Deadline

Filing Fee Reimbursement

Petitioner

$550.00

Within 40 days of Order

Civil Penalty

Dept. of Fire, Building and Life Safety

$2,500.00

Within 60 days of Order

Statutory Compliance

Compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1247 and CC&Rs

Immediate/Ongoing

Enforcement and Appeal Rights

• Finality: This is a final administrative decision and is not subject to a request for rehearing.

• Enforcement: The order is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings in the Superior Court.

• Appeals: Any party wishing to appeal the final decision must file a complaint within 35 days of service, as per Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Study Guide: Thomas Hogue v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law judge decision regarding the dispute between Thomas Hogue and Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums. It explores the legal mechanisms of the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, the consequences of default in administrative proceedings, and the jurisdictional limits of administrative hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.

1. What was the core allegation made by Thomas Hogue in his petition against Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums?

2. What role does the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety play in homeowner or condominium association disputes?

3. Why was the Administrative Law Judge’s decision issued “on default”?

4. According to the document, what specific statute and internal document did the Respondent violate regarding maintenance?

5. How much was the filing fee paid by the Petitioner, and what was the final ruling regarding this fee?

6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge deny the Petitioner’s request for $1,433.05 in repair costs and $500.00 in compensatory damages?

7. What were the “matters in aggravation” cited by the judge in this case?

8. What is the significance of A.R.S. § 41-2198(B) regarding the finality of the judge’s order?

9. What are the financial penalties imposed on the Respondent aside from the reimbursement of the filing fee?

10. What is the process and timeframe for a party to appeal this final administrative decision?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to maintain proper drainage and common elements of the property. This failure resulted in significant flood damage to the Petitioner’s condominium unit during the monsoon season on or about July 6, 2008.

2. Role of the Department: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), the Department serves as the state agency where homeowners or condominium associations file petitions for hearings regarding disputes. It has the authority to receive petitions, collect filing fees, and refer matters to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

3. Decision on Default: The decision was issued on default because the Respondent failed to submit a written response to the Notice of Petition within the required 20-day timeframe. By failing to answer, the Respondent was legally deemed to have admitted to the factual allegations contained in the petition.

4. Violated Statutes and Documents: The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1247, which pertains to the maintenance of condominiums. Additionally, the Respondent failed to adhere to Article 5 of the CC&Rs (Condominium Maintenance and Repair).

5. Filing Fee Ruling: The Petitioner paid a nonrefundable filing fee of $550.00 to the Department upon filing. As the prevailing party, the judge ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner the full $550.00 within 40 days of the order.

6. Denial of Damages: The judge noted that the administrative forum does not have the jurisdiction to permit an award for damages. To seek the $1,433.05 in repair costs and $500.00 in compensatory damages, the Petitioner must file a claim in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

7. Matters in Aggravation: The judge identified three factors in aggravation: the Respondent’s failure to maintain common elements leading to the flood, the failure to ameliorate the resulting damage to the unit, and the failure to respond to the legal petition.

8. Finality of the Order: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198(B), an order from an assigned Administrative Law Judge is a final administrative decision and is not subject to a rehearing. It is legally binding and can be enforced through contempt of court proceedings in the Superior Court.

9. Financial Penalties: In addition to the fee reimbursement, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department. This payment was required within 60 days of the order, unless granted an extension by the Department.

10. Appeal Process: A party may appeal the decision to the Superior Court by filing a complaint within 35 days of the decision being served. Service is considered complete upon personal delivery or five days after the decision is mailed to the party’s last known address.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Impact of Procedural Default: Discuss how the Respondent’s failure to answer the petition shifted the burden of proof and determined the outcome of this case. How does A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F) define the legal weight of a failure to respond?

2. Administrative vs. Civil Jurisdiction: Analyze the limitations placed on the Administrative Law Judge regarding the awarding of relief. Why could the judge levy a civil penalty and order fee reimbursement but not award repair costs or compensatory damages?

3. Statutory Obligations of Condominium Associations: Examine the responsibilities of a condominium association as outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1247 and Article 5 of the CC&Rs based on the findings of this case. What are the consequences for a failure to maintain “Common Elements”?

4. The Role of Aggravating Factors in Administrative Law: Evaluate how the Respondent’s conduct—both before and during the legal process—influenced the judge’s decision-making. How do “matters in aggravation” impact the severity of the final order?

5. Enforcement and Finality: Explain the legal mechanisms that ensure an Administrative Law Judge’s decision is followed. Discuss the relationship between the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Superior Court in terms of enforcement and the appeals process.

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1247

The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited regarding the maintenance of condominium properties and common elements.

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

The statute granting the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety the authority to receive petitions and facilitate hearings for homeowner disputes.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official who reviews the facts, applies the law, and issues a final decision in administrative disputes.

Aggravation

Factors or circumstances that increase the severity of a violation or justify a harsher penalty, such as failing to ameliorate damage or ignoring a legal petition.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents of a condominium or planned community (specifically Article 5 in this case).

Civil Penalty

A monetary fine (in this case $2,500.00) imposed by the judge for violations of statutes or community documents, payable to the state department rather than the petitioner.

Common Elements

The shared areas and infrastructure of a condominium complex, such as drainage systems, that the association is responsible for maintaining.

Default

A failure to fulfill a legal obligation, specifically the Respondent’s failure to file a written answer to the petition within the 20-day statutory limit.

Petitioner

The party who initiates the legal action by filing a petition (Thomas Hogue).

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action is brought (Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums).

When Silence Costs $3,000: The Price of HOA Arrogance

1. Introduction

Imagine waking up to the roar of an Arizona monsoon, only to find the storm has followed you inside. As water rushes into your living room, you realize the HOA’s neglected drainage system has failed. You do the “right thing”—you document the damage, you reach out for help, and you file a formal petition. Then, you wait. And you wait. But instead of a repair crew, you get total, stony silence from your Board of Directors.

For Thomas Hogue, this wasn’t just a hypothetical nightmare; it was the reality of his life at Shadow Mountain Villas. However, as the case of Thomas Hogue vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominiums proves, an HOA’s “ostrich strategy”—burying its head in the sand and ignoring legal notices—is a form of procedural suicide. Today, we’re looking at a cautionary tale that reveals the surprising power of Arizona’s administrative hearing process and the heavy price an association pays when it treats a legal summons like junk mail.

2. Silence as an Admission of Guilt

In the world of community law, silence isn’t a strategy; it’s an admission. When Mr. Hogue filed his petition, the association was served a formal Notice of Petition by the state. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), the HOA had exactly 20 days to provide a written answer. They didn’t just miss the deadline; they ignored the process entirely.

This arrogance triggered a “Decision on Default.” By failing to participate, the HOA committed the ultimate legal “own goal.” Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F), because the association failed to file an answer, they were legally deemed to have admitted to every single factual allegation Mr. Hogue made. As the Administrative Law Judge noted:

Ignoring a legal problem is the fastest way to lose your right to a defense. By the time the Judge took the bench, the HOA had already “confessed” to its own negligence.

3. The High Cost of Maintenance Neglect

The facts of the case, now legally undisputed due to the default, painted a grim picture of failed stewardship. On July 6, 2008, the association’s failure to maintain common drainage elements led to significant flooding in Mr. Hogue’s unit. This wasn’t just a maintenance lapse; it was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1247 and Article 5 of the community’s own CC&Rs.

The financial “teeth” of the administrative process were applied swiftly. The Judge ordered the following:

• A $2,500.00 civil penalty.

• The mandatory reimbursement of the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee.

There is a biting irony here. The cost to simply clear a drain or fix a pipe is often a pittance. Instead, the HOA’s neglect turned a routine maintenance task into a $3,050.00 legal bill.

4. The Administrative “Dead End” for Damages

While this case is a victory for homeowner rights, it also highlights a critical jurisdictional limit that every resident must understand. In Finding of Fact #11, the Judge acknowledged that Mr. Hogue spent 1,433.05∗∗oninteriorrepairsandsoughtanadditional∗∗500.00 in damages.

However, the Office of Administrative Hearings—which operates under the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety—is not a “one-stop shop” for money. While the Judge found the HOA liable, the law does not allow this specific administrative forum to award compensatory repair costs to the homeowner. Note the payee: the $2,500.00 fine goes to the State Treasury, not the victim.

Homeowners Must Still Seek Recovery in Civil Court This is the “Administrative Dead End.” Mr. Hogue walked away with his 550.00∗∗feereimbursed,buttoactuallyseeacheckforhis∗∗1,433.05 in repairs, he would have to take this final administrative ruling and file a separate action in a “civil court of competent jurisdiction.” The administrative victory proves the HOA broke the law, but a civil judge must be the one to order them to pay for the carpet.

5. “Matters in Aggravation” and Finality

The Judge’s ruling didn’t pull any punches regarding the HOA’s behavior, citing “matters in aggrevation” [sic]. This is a legal term of art essentially meaning the HOA made a bad situation worse. The Judge specifically pointed to the HOA’s failure to “ameliorate the damage”—they didn’t just cause the flood; they stood by and watched the damage sit there. This, combined with their contemptuous silence toward the legal petition, is precisely why the civil penalty reached $2,500.00.

Boards should take note: this decision is not a suggestion. Per A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B), this order is a final administrative action. It is not subject to a rehearing. If the HOA refuses to pay the State its fine or the homeowner their fee, the order is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings in the Superior Court.

6. Conclusion: A Lesson in Accountability

The Hogue v. Shadow Mountain Villas case is a reminder that homeowners are not powerless. Arizona statutes like A.R.S. Title 33 provide the shield, and the administrative process provides the sword. While the “split” between state penalties and civil damages is a hurdle for homeowners, the “teeth” of the law are very real for negligent boards.

When an association ignores its duty to maintain the property and then ignores a legal summons, it isn’t “saving money”—it’s gambling with the community’s coffers. Is your board’s ego and lack of responsiveness worth a $2,500.00 “default” lesson from the State? If they aren’t proactive today, they might be paying for it tomorrow.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas Hogue (Petitioner)

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on service list
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on service list

Riem, Karl -v- Rancho Antigua Condos

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H089009-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-12-19
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Respondent failed to respond to the petition and a Notice of Default was entered. The Administrative Law Judge ruled the Respondent in default and designated the Petitioner as the prevailing party. However, because the Petitioner failed to cite specific statutory provisions or governing documents in the petition, the ALJ could not award substantive relief beyond the reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Karl Riem Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Antigua Condos Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Respondent failed to respond to the petition and a Notice of Default was entered. The Administrative Law Judge ruled the Respondent in default and designated the Petitioner as the prevailing party. However, because the Petitioner failed to cite specific statutory provisions or governing documents in the petition, the ALJ could not award substantive relief beyond the reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Default Judgment / Failure to Cite Provisions

Respondent failed to submit a response to the Petition and was held in default. However, Petitioner did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16 or any provision of any planned community or condominium document allegedly violated. Consequently, relief was limited to the filing fee.

Orders: Respondent is in default and Petitioner is the prevailing party. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089009-BFS Decision – 204670.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:35:56 (54.6 KB)

08F-H089009-BFS Decision – 204670.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:59 (54.6 KB)

Administrative Ruling: Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos

Executive Summary

On December 19, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued an Order of Default and Award of Filing Fee in the matter of Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos (No. 08F-H089009-BFS). The ruling followed a Notice of Default entered on October 31, 2008, after the Respondent failed to answer the Petitioner’s allegations.

While the Respondent was found to be in default and the Petitioner was named the prevailing party, the relief granted was strictly limited to the reimbursement of the $550.00 filing fee. This limitation was due to a significant deficiency in the Petition: the failure to cite specific statutory violations or governing document breaches. Consequently, while the allegations were deemed admitted by statute, they did not provide a legal basis for substantive relief beyond the recovery of costs.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

The following table summarizes the administrative and legal context of the proceedings:

Category

Details

Case Number

08F-H089009-BFS

Petitioner

Karl Riem

Respondent

Rancho Antigua Condos

Presiding Official

Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal

Administrative Body

Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)

Overseeing Agency

Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Date of Order

December 19, 2008

——————————————————————————–

Procedural History and Findings

The Entry of Default

The matter was initiated via a Petition submitted by Karl Riem to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The Respondent, Rancho Antigua Condos, failed to submit a response to the Petition. Under the administrative rules governing the Department:

• On October 31, 2008, the Director of the Department entered a Notice of Default based on the Respondent’s failure to answer.

• Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), in the event of a default, the allegations contained within a Petition can be “deemed admitted.”

Deficiencies in the Petition

Despite the Respondent’s default, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) identified critical technical omissions in the Petitioner’s filing. The Source Context notes that the Petitioner “did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16 or a provision of any planned community or condominium document that was allegedly violated by Respondent.”

Because the Petition lacked citations to specific laws (Chapters 9 or 16 of Title 33) or specific internal condominium documents, the ALJ determined that substantive relief could not be justified, even though the allegations were technically admitted through the default process.

——————————————————————————–

Final Order and Award

Based on the findings of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the following mandates were issued:

1. Prevailing Party Designation: The Respondent is officially in default, and the Petitioner, Karl Riem, is designated as the prevailing party.

2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The Respondent is ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for the filing fee in the amount of $550.00.

3. Compliance Timeline: The Respondent must complete this reimbursement within forty (40) days of the date of the Order (December 19, 2008).

——————————————————————————–

Distribution and Service

The original Order was transmitted to the following parties:

• Robert Barger, Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (Attn: Debra Blake).

• Karl Riem (Petitioner) at his Scottsdale, Arizona residence.

• Rancho Antigua Condos (Respondent) via Cuellar Realty Services in Phoenix, Arizona.

Study Guide: Administrative Hearing Case No. 08F-H089009-BFS

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal proceedings between Karl Riem and Rancho Antigua Condos. It is designed to facilitate an understanding of the procedural outcomes and legal limitations inherent in default judgments within the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source text.

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this specific case?

2. What was the primary reason for the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to enter a Notice of Default?

3. Why was the Petitioner unable to receive any relief other than the reimbursement of his filing fee?

4. According to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), what happens to the allegations in a Petition when a default occurs?

5. What specific amount was the Respondent ordered to pay the Petitioner, and for what purpose?

6. Who was the Administrative Law Judge who presided over this matter and issued the order?

7. What is the deadline for the Respondent to fulfill the order for reimbursement?

8. Which two chapters of A.R.S. Title 33 were specifically mentioned as not being cited in the Petition?

9. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located, according to the document?

10. To whom was the original copy of the order transmitted on behalf of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this specific case? The Petitioner is Karl Riem and the Respondent is Rancho Antigua Condos. The case was filed under the number 08F-H089009-BFS.

2. What was the primary reason for the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to enter a Notice of Default? The Notice of Default was entered because the Respondent failed to submit a response to the Petition. This notice was officially entered on October 31, 2008.

3. Why was the Petitioner unable to receive any relief other than the reimbursement of his filing fee? The Petitioner did not cite any specific violations of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16, or any specific community or condominium documents. Because no specific legal violations were alleged, the judge could not award further relief beyond the filing fee.

4. According to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), what happens to the allegations in a Petition when a default occurs? Under this statute, the allegations contained in the Petition can be “deemed admitted” in the event of a default. This means the facts of the petition are accepted as true because they were not contested.

5. What specific amount was the Respondent ordered to pay the Petitioner, and for what purpose? The Respondent was ordered to pay $550.00 to the Petitioner. This payment was specifically for the reimbursement of the Petitioner’s filing fee.

6. Who was the Administrative Law Judge who presided over this matter and issued the order? The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was Lewis D. Kowal. He signed the Order of Default and Award of Filing Fee on December 19, 2008.

7. What is the deadline for the Respondent to fulfill the order for reimbursement? The Respondent is required to reimburse the Petitioner within forty days of the date of the Order. The Order was issued and signed on December 19, 2008.

8. Which two chapters of A.R.S. Title 33 were specifically mentioned as not being cited in the Petition? The document specifically notes that the Petitioner failed to cite provisions from A.R.S. Title 33, Chapters 9 or 16. These chapters generally govern community or condominium legalities.

9. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located, according to the document? The Office of Administrative Hearings is located at 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. Their listed phone number is (602) 542-9826.

10. To whom was the original copy of the order transmitted on behalf of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety? The original was transmitted to Robert Barger, the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The transmission was marked to the attention of Debra Blake.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Format Questions

Instructions: Use the information from the source text to develop detailed responses to the following prompts.

1. The Importance of Statutory Citations: Analyze how Karl Riem’s failure to cite specific provisions of A.R.S. Title 33 or condominium documents affected the outcome of the case. Discuss why a “prevailing party” might still fail to receive substantive relief.

2. The Role of Default in Administrative Law: Explain the procedural implications of a Respondent failing to answer a Petition. Detail how the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety handles such failures and the legal assumptions made under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D).

3. Administrative Law Judge Authority: Discuss the role of Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal in this case. Evaluate his decision to grant a default judgment while simultaneously limiting the award to the filing fee.

4. Timeline and Compliance: Trace the timeline of this case from the Notice of Default to the final order. Explain the significance of the 40-day reimbursement window provided to the Respondent.

5. Service and Notification: Describe the administrative process for transmitting orders and notices as evidenced by the distribution list at the end of the document. Identify the key stakeholders involved in receiving the legal results.

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S.

Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding officer who hears and decides cases for an administrative agency, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Default

A failure to perform a legal duty or respond to a legal proceeding, such as failing to submit a response to a Petition.

Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

The state department responsible for oversight and enforcement related to fire safety, building codes, and community/condominium disputes.

Filing Fee

The administrative cost paid by a Petitioner to initiate a case; in this matter, the fee was $550.00.

Notice of Default

A formal document entered by a director or judge noting that a party has failed to respond to a legal action within the required timeframe.

A formal instruction or decision issued by a judge (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) that mandates specific actions or determines the outcome of a case.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (Karl Riem).

Prevailing Party

The party in a legal proceeding that is deemed successful; despite receiving limited relief, the Petitioner was named the prevailing party due to the Respondent’s default.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or legal action is filed (Rancho Antigua Condos).

Source Fidelity Note: This study guide is based entirely on excerpts from the “204670.pdf” document regarding Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos.

Why “Winning” Your Case Isn’t Always a Victory: Lessons from an Administrative Default

1. Introduction: The High Cost of a Quiet Courtroom

In the pursuit of legal redress, many litigants imagine the “gold standard” of outcomes: a scenario where the opposition fails to respond, leading to an automatic victory. From a strategic perspective, however, a procedural win is often a hollow shell if it lacks a substantive foundation. The case of Karl Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos (No. 08F-H089009-BFS) serves as a stark reminder that even when the other side remains silent, the burden of pleading remains with the petitioner.

Processed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, this case illustrates how a failure to establish a statutory nexus can turn a “win” into a net loss of time and resources. For the petitioner, the “high cost” was not just the filing fee, but the forfeiture of any meaningful relief due to a fundamental failure of pleading.

2. The Default Trap: When Silence is an Admission, but Not a Guarantee

The procedural timeline of this matter began with a significant tactical advantage for the Petitioner. On October 31, 2008, the Director of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety entered a Notice of Default against the Respondent, Rancho Antigua Condos, following their failure to submit a formal response to the Petition.

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), a default allows the Administrative Tribunal to deem the factual allegations in the petition as admitted. While this technically designates the Petitioner as the “prevailing party,” a Legal Insights Strategist must recognize this as a double-edged sword. Admitting the facts does not automatically equate to proving a legal violation that warrants a specific remedy. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is still bound by the statutory framework of the initial filing.

The final Order emphasizes this distinction:

3. The Citation Gap: Why Specificity is the Soul of Legal Relief

The primary obstacle in Riem vs. Rancho Antigua Condos was a critical “citation gap.” Despite the Respondent’s default, ALJ Lewis D. Kowal noted that the Petitioner failed to state a claim upon which substantive relief could be granted. Specifically, the Petitioner did not cite any provision of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 (the Arizona Condominium Act) or Chapter 16 (the Planned Communities Act), nor any specific governing documents of the condominium association.

In Arizona property law, these chapters function as the “constitutions” of dispute resolution. Without anchoring allegations to these statutes, a Petitioner fails to establish the necessary statutory basis for a cause of action. The OAH cannot manufacture a legal theory or invent a remedy that the Petitioner has not explicitly requested through proper statutory citation.

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

4. The $550 Victory: A Breakdown of the Final Award

The final Order, issued on December 19, 2008, resulted in what can only be described as a pyrrhic victory. Although the Petitioner “won” the case, the lack of substantive legal grounding meant that the only recovery permitted was the restitution of the costs required to initiate the hearing.

Summary of the Orders issued by ALJ Lewis D. Kowal:

• Notice of Default: Confirmed the Respondent’s default status based on the Director’s October 31 entry.

• Prevailing Party Designation: Officially named Karl Riem as the prevailing party in the administrative matter.

• Reimbursement Window: Ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee within forty days of the December 19, 2008, Order.

From an analytical standpoint, the Petitioner ended the dispute in the exact financial position they occupied before the filing, minus the significant “opportunity cost” of the time invested in the litigation.

5. Conclusion: The Importance of a Solid Foundation

The Riem case serves as a masterclass in the importance of preparation and legal precision. In administrative law, the tribunal’s power is not broad; it is specific and tethered to the law. A “win” by default does not relieve a petitioner of the duty to build a solid evidentiary and legal foundation. Simply identifying a grievance is insufficient; one must bridge the gap between a perceived wrong and the specific legislative acts—such as the Arizona Condominium and Planned Communities Acts—that govern it.

——————————————————————————–

Ponder This

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Karl Riem (petitioner)

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Coon, Horace E. vs. Indian Hills Airpark Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H089002-BFS
Agency —
Tribunal —
Decision Date 2008-11-17
Administrative Law Judge BBT
Outcome Petition is dismissed.
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Horace E. Coon Counsel —
Respondent Indian Hills Airpark Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089002-BFS Decision – 202581.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:35:05 (92.8 KB)

08F-H089002-BFS Decision – 202581.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:40 (92.8 KB)

Briefing Document: Coon v. Indian Hills Airpark Association (No. 08F-H089002-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing between Horace E. Coon (Petitioner) and the Indian Hills Airpark Association (Respondent). The dispute centered on the Respondent's alleged failure to provide financial and accounting records as required by Arizona law and the association's bylaws.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Brendan Tully presided over the matter, ultimately dismissing the petition. The core of the ruling established that providing records in an electronic format satisfies statutory requirements for document disclosure. Additionally, the decision clarified that administrative proceedings do not qualify as "actions" for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees under the cited precedent.

Case Overview and Timeline

Detail Information
Case Number 08F-H089002-BFS
Petitioner Horace E. Coon
Respondent Indian Hills Airpark Association
Hearing Date November 4, 2008
Decision Date November 17, 2008
Presiding Judge Brian Brendan Tully
Statutory Basis A.R.S. § 33-1805; A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)
Procedural History

The Petitioner filed a single-count petition on July 7, 2008, following a records request made on May 29, 2008. The matter was handled by the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety and forwarded to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a formal adjudication.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Compliance in Document Disclosure

The primary conflict involved the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the provision of association records. The Petitioner argued that the association failed to provide the requested financial/accounting records, rendering them "unavailable" for his complaint. However, the Respondent demonstrated that it maintained records electronically and had provided them on a computer disk.

The ALJ ruled that the association's method of delivery was sufficient. By utilizing A.R.S. § 44-7007(A) and (C), the court found that electronic records hold the same legal standing as paper records in fulfilling disclosure obligations.

2. The Format of Records: Electronic vs. Paper

A significant point of contention was whether a member has the right to demand paper copies over electronic formats. The Petitioner contended he was entitled to paper documents. The court rejected this, noting that:

  • The association's records were natively electronic (stored on a treasurer's laptop and backed up to an office computer).
  • Furnishing the documentation in an electronic format was "appropriate" and supported by applicable statutes.
3. Technical Obstacles and Good Faith Efforts

The record indicates a technical failure occurred when the Respondent's treasurer inadvertently applied a personal password to the disk provided to the Petitioner. Upon notification, the treasurer created a new disk with a generic password. While the Petitioner claimed he still could not access all data, the ALJ found that the Respondent had complied with the request, suggesting that technical difficulties do not necessarily equate to a statutory violation if the association makes reasonable efforts to provide access.

4. Limitations on Financial Recovery

The decision underscored the limitations regarding the recovery of costs in administrative hearings:

  • Filing Fees: Because the Petitioner was not the "prevailing party," he was not entitled to the reimbursement of his filing fee under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B).
  • Attorney's Fees: The Respondent's claim for attorney's fees was denied. The ALJ cited Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc. to establish that an administrative proceeding is not an "action" that triggers the awarding of such fees.

Important Quotes and Context

"Respondent’s furnishing of the requested documentation in an electronic format was appropriate."

  • Context: Finding of Fact No. 12. This addressed the Petitioner's claim that he was entitled to paper copies. The ALJ found no evidence or statutory requirement that mandated paper over electronic media.

"Pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-7007(A) and (C), the electronic record supplied by Respondent to Petitioner complies with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805."

  • Context: Conclusion of Law No. 3. This is the legal pivot of the decision, linking the electronic transactions statutes to the planned community records disclosure laws.

"Respondent’s claim for attorney’s fee must be denied because an administrative proceeding is not an 'action' for which attorney’s fees can be awarded."

  • Context: Conclusion of Law No. 5. This clarifies the financial risks for parties in these types of disputes, noting that even a successful Respondent cannot recover legal fees in this venue.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowner and Planned Community Associations
  • Digital Validity: Associations can confidently fulfill record requests using electronic media (disks, emails, etc.), especially if the records are natively stored in that format.
  • Password Protocols: When providing electronic records, associations should ensure that security measures (like passwords) are generic or clearly communicated to avoid claims of non-compliance due to "inaccessibility."
  • Storage Redundancy: The Respondent’s practice of backing up the treasurer’s laptop to an office computer was noted as part of their standard record-maintenance procedure.
For Association Members
  • Format Flexibility: Members should be prepared to accept electronic records. Demanding paper copies may not be legally enforceable if electronic records are provided.
  • Burden of Proof: The Petitioner carries the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence). Merely stating that data is inaccessible is insufficient to prove a violation if the association has attempted to provide it.
Legal and Procedural Realities
  • Finality of Decisions: Decisions from the Office of Administrative Hearings in these matters are final and not subject to rehearing, though they are enforceable through the Superior Court via contempt proceedings.
  • Cost Management: Parties should be aware that they are unlikely to recover attorney’s fees in this specific administrative venue, regardless of the outcome.

Case Analysis Study Guide: Horace E. Coon v. Indian Hills Airpark Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Horace E. Coon v. Indian Hills Airpark Association (No. 08F-H089002-BFS). It outlines the jurisdictional framework, factual background, legal conclusions, and procedural outcomes of the dispute regarding a member's access to association records.

Key Concepts and Legal Framework

The following legal principles and statutes govern the adjudication of disputes between homeowners and planned community associations in Arizona, as demonstrated in this case:

1. Jurisdictional Authority
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B): Authorizes the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety ("Department") to receive petitions regarding disputes between homeowner associations (HOAs) and their members.
  • Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): An independent agency that conducts formal hearings for petitions forwarded by the Department.
  • Scope of Authority: Per A.R.S. § 41-2198, the OAH is limited to adjudicating complaints regarding compliance with A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16 (Planned Communities) and the respondent's specific governing documents.
2. Statutory Records Access
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805: Sets the standard for a member's right to access association records.
  • A.R.S. § 44-7007(A) and (C): Validates the use of electronic records. In this case, providing records on a computer disk was ruled sufficient to satisfy the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
3. Procedural Standards
  • Burden of Proof: Under A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner carries the burden of proof.
  • Standard of Proof: The case is decided based on a "preponderance of the evidence" (A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)).
  • Finality: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B), an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in these matters is the final administrative action and is not subject to rehearing.

Case Summary: Findings of Fact

Entity/Person Role
Horace E. Coon Petitioner; Member of the Indian Hills Airpark Association.
Indian Hills Airpark Association Respondent; The planned community association.
Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) presiding over the case.
David Paul Miller Association Treasurer responsible for record-keeping.

The Dispute: On May 29, 2008, the Petitioner requested financial and accounting records from the Respondent. The Respondent maintains records electronically on a laptop and a backup office computer. On June 12, 2008, the Treasurer provided the records on a computer disk.

Complications:

  1. Accessibility: The initial disk was locked with the Treasurer's personal password. A second disk was eventually provided with a generic password.
  2. Format: The Petitioner claimed he could not access all data and argued that he was legally entitled to paper copies rather than electronic formats.

The Ruling: The ALJ found that the Association complied with the request. The law does not require paper copies if electronic copies are provided. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A presiding officer who conducts hearings and issues decisions for administrative agencies.
A.R.S. Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Burden of Proof The obligation of a party (in this case, the Petitioner) to provide enough evidence to support their claim.
Electronic Record A record created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means.
Planned Community A real estate development where owners are mandatory members of an association (governed by A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16).
Preponderance of the Evidence The standard of proof requiring that a fact is more likely than not to be true.
Prevailing Party The party in a lawsuit who wins on the main issues; typically eligible for certain fee reimbursements if allowed by statute.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What specific Arizona statute authorizes the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to handle HOA disputes?
  • Answer: A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B).
  1. Who bears the burden of proof in an OAH hearing regarding a planned community dispute?
  • Answer: The Petitioner.
  1. According to the ALJ's decision, is an association required to provide paper copies of records if they offer the records in an electronic format?
  • Answer: No. The ALJ ruled that furnishing documentation in an electronic format is appropriate and supported by A.R.S. § 44-7007.
  1. Why was the Respondent’s claim for attorney’s fees denied?
  • Answer: Because an administrative proceeding is not considered an "action" for which attorney’s fees can be awarded under Arizona case law (Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc.).
  1. If a Petitioner loses their case, are they entitled to have the Respondent pay their filing fee?
  • Answer: No. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B), only a prevailing party may be entitled to the filing fee.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Electronic vs. Physical Records: Analyze the impact of A.R.S. § 44-7007 on the transparency requirements of planned communities. Does the transition to electronic record-keeping enhance or hinder a member's right to access information under A.R.S. § 33-1805? Use the facts of the Coon case—specifically the password and accessibility issues—to support your argument.
  1. The Limitations of Administrative Remedies: Discuss the jurisdictional limits of the Office of Administrative Hearings as outlined in this case. Why might the legislature limit the OAH to specific chapters of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and what are the implications for homeowners who may have grievances that fall outside these specific statutes?
  1. The Role of the Treasurer in Association Governance: In this case, the Treasurer's use of a personal password initially blocked the member's access to records. Evaluate the responsibilities of association officers regarding the separation of personal and professional data. How does this case serve as a precedent for how associations should handle electronic document requests?

Digital Records and HOA Disputes: Key Lessons from Coon v. Indian Hills Airpark Association

1. Introduction: The Conflict Over Access

In aging airpark communities and established HOAs across the country, the transition from paper to pixels is often met with resistance. The shift from physical filing cabinets to digital storage frequently sparks a high-stakes question of transparency: is an HOA legally required to provide physical paper copies, or is a digital file enough to satisfy the law?

The case of Horace E. Coon vs. Indian Hills Airpark Association serves as a definitive roadmap for this modern dilemma. It explores the intersection of traditional record-keeping statutes and the reality of 21st-century technology, ultimately answering whether a member's preference for paper can override an association's right to provide electronic access.

2. The Case Narrative: From Request to Courtroom

The dispute arose in mid-2008 when the Petitioner, Horace E. Coon—who appeared personally (pro se) throughout the proceedings—sought specific financial and accounting records from the Indian Hills Airpark Association. The Association, represented by Jonathan Olcott, Esq., attempted to fulfill the request digitally, leading to a series of technical hurdles that ended in an administrative hearing.

The timeline of the dispute highlights the friction between good-faith efforts and technical complications:

  • May 29, 2008: Petitioner submitted a written request for records maintained by the Association.
  • June 12, 2008: The Respondent’s treasurer, David Paul Miller, provided the requested documentation to the Petitioner on a computer disk.
  • The Technical Hiccup: Upon receiving the disk, the Petitioner could not open the files. Mr. Miller, then at his home in Oregon, realized he had inadvertently protected the disk with a personal password.
  • The Resolution: Rather than disclosing his personal credentials, Mr. Miller created a second disk with a generic password and delivered it to the Petitioner.

Crucially, despite having received the second disk and the means to access the files, the Petitioner filed a formal complaint on July 7, 2008. His primary contentions were:

  • Accessibility Issues: A claim that he still could not access all the data on the disk.
  • Format Demand: An allegation that the Association "failed to act" by not providing the records in a physical paper format.

3. Legal Deep Dive: The Status of Electronic Records

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Brendan Tully was tasked with determining whether electronic production met the requirements of Arizona law. The Petitioner argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805—the statute governing the inspection of records—entitled him to paper copies.

The ALJ rejected this interpretation, noting that modern statutes have "neutralized" the traditional legal preference for paper.

Legal Note: The Significance of Electronic Records Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, HOAs must make records available for examination. However, the ALJ ruled that this obligation must be read in conjunction with the Arizona Electronic Transactions Act, specifically A.R.S. § 44-7007(A) and (C). These statutes establish that: 1. A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. 2. If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies that law. Consequently, the ALJ found that the electronic disk supplied by the Association complied fully with the "writing" requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

The ALJ’s findings clarified that a technical glitch, such as a password error that is subsequently corrected, does not constitute a "failure to act." The Association demonstrated it had acted in good faith by maintaining electronic backups on both a laptop and an office computer and by providing the Petitioner with the means to access them.

4. The Cost of Litigation: Fees and Outcomes

On November 17, 2008, the ALJ issued a final order dismissing the petition. While the Association was the prevailing party, the financial outcome underscores a major "pain point" for HOA Boards involved in administrative disputes.

Claimant Request Final Ruling
Requested physical access/paper copies of financial/accounting records Dismissed: Electronic records were found to be legally appropriate and compliant.
Reimbursement of the $500.00 filing fee Denied: The Petitioner was not the prevailing party under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B).
Respondent’s claim for attorney’s fees Denied: Under the precedent of Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., administrative hearings are not "actions" where fees can be awarded.

For Boards, the takeaway is sobering: even if you win, you may still be responsible for your own legal costs. Because this was an administrative proceeding through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) rather than a "court action," the Association could not recover the fees spent on their legal counsel, Jonathan Olcott, Esq.

5. Strategic Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The Coon case serves as a warning that technical diligence and cooperation are always preferable to the rigid environment of an OAH hearing.

For Homeowners
  • Accept Digital Formats: Legally, an HOA is not obligated to provide paper copies if an electronic equivalent exists. Refusing a disk or digital file in favor of paper is a losing legal strategy that will likely lead to a dismissed petition.
  • The Burden of Proof: In an OAH proceeding, the Petitioner carries the burden of proof by a "preponderance of the evidence." To succeed, you must prove the Association willfully withheld records. A technical error or a password mistake that the Board attempts to fix does not constitute a refusal to provide records.
For HOA Boards
  • Utilize Association-Owned Storage: In this case, the treasurer used a personal laptop and a personal password, which caused the initial friction. Boards should use association-owned cloud storage or dedicated devices to ensure records remain accessible regardless of a specific director's location.
  • Standardize File Formats: To avoid "failure to act" allegations, provide records in universal, non-proprietary formats such as PDF or Excel. Using standard formats and generic passwords for record production minimizes the Petitioner's ability to claim the data is "inaccessible."

Ultimately, Coon v. Indian Hills Airpark Association confirms that as long as the information is accessible and usable, the medium—whether digital or physical—remains at the Association's discretion. In the realm of community governance, a functional digital file is just as good as a stack of paper in the eyes of the law.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Horace E. Coon (Petitioner)
    Appeared personally

Respondent Side

  • Jonathan Olcott (Attorney)
    The Brown Law Group
    Esq., represented Indian Hills Airpark Association
  • David Paul Miller (Treasurer)
    Indian Hills Airpark Association

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Brendan Tully (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
  • Debra Blake (Contact)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety

Holzman, Andrew -v- Emerald Springs Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H089003-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-10-28
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (HOA), finding that the Board acted appropriately in approving a 5-foot pool fence despite CC&R restrictions limiting height to 4 feet. The ALJ concluded that the HOA is required to comply with the County ordinance mandating a minimum 5-foot height for pool fences, which overrides the conflicting CC&R provision.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Andrew Holzman Counsel —
Respondent Emerald Springs Homeowners Association Counsel Jason Smith

Alleged Violations

CC&R Sec. 3.16(1); CC&R Sec. 3.27

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (HOA), finding that the Board acted appropriately in approving a 5-foot pool fence despite CC&R restrictions limiting height to 4 feet. The ALJ concluded that the HOA is required to comply with the County ordinance mandating a minimum 5-foot height for pool fences, which overrides the conflicting CC&R provision.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prevail because the CC&R provisions sought to be enforced were contrary to a County ordinance requiring higher fences for safety.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of fence height restrictions regarding neighbor's pool fence

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by approving a neighbor's plan for a pool fence at least 5 feet in height, whereas the CC&Rs restrict fence height to 4 feet. The HOA argued it must comply with a County ordinance requiring pool fences to be a minimum of 5 feet.

Orders: No action is required of the Association with respect to the Petition.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089003-BFS Decision – 201322.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:35:17 (95.3 KB)

08F-H089003-BFS Decision – 201322.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:42 (95.3 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Holzman v. Emerald Springs Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

The dispute in Andrew Holzman v. Emerald Springs Homeowners Association (No. 08F-H089003-BFS) centers on the conflict between private residential restrictive covenants and municipal safety ordinances. The Petitioner, Andrew Holzman, alleged that the Emerald Springs Homeowners Association (the “Association”) violated its Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by approving a neighbor’s pool fence that exceeded height limitations.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while the Association’s CC&Rs mandate a maximum fence height of four feet for certain areas, La Paz County ordinance requires pool safety fences to be a minimum of five feet high. The ruling concludes that an association cannot be compelled to enforce CC&Rs that conflict with the law. Consequently, the Association’s approval of the five-foot fence was upheld as a necessary compliance with county safety requirements.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Parties

Location

Andrew Holzman

Petitioner

Lot 24, Emerald Springs

Emerald Springs HOA

Respondent

Phoenix/La Paz County, Arizona

Waymen & Carolyn Dekens

Involved Third Party

Lot 23, Emerald Springs (Neighbors)

The dispute arose when the owners of Lot 23 proposed extensive landscaping, including a pool with waterfalls and a safety fence. Mr. Holzman, residing on the adjacent Lot 24, challenged the approval on the grounds that the fence would obstruct his view of the Colorado River.

——————————————————————————–

Alleged Violations of CC&Rs

The Petitioner cited two specific sections of the Association’s CC&Rs as the basis for his complaint:

1. Section 3.16(1): Stipulates that fences and walls starting 130 feet from the front property line and extending toward the river may not exceed four feet in height and must be of an “open type face.”

2. Section 3.27: Mandates that back and front yard fences must not exceed four feet in height (open type), while side yard fences must not exceed six feet (constructed of wood, concrete block, or similar materials).

The core of the Petitioner’s argument was that the Association approved a fence for Lot 23 that reached at least five feet in height, thereby violating the four-foot restriction in Section 3.16(1) and the back yard provisions of Section 3.27.

——————————————————————————–

Findings of Fact

Board Approval and Meeting Discrepancies

On June 21, 2008, the Association Board met to discuss the proposed pool for Lot 23. The nature of this meeting and the subsequent approval were subjects of significant testimony:

• Petitioner’s View: Mr. Holzman, attending telephonically, contended that the Board approved the construction of the pool and fence despite his concerns about view obstruction.

• Association’s View: The Board President testified that the Board only approved the “concept” of the pool, conditioned on future engineering surveys and landscaping plans. They argued no formal written plans were approved during that session.

• Official Record: Meeting minutes and subsequent emails from the Board Secretary (Judy Jerrels) indicated that plans were indeed “passed around” and “conditionally approved,” with the understanding that revised plans would follow.

The Conflict of Regulations

The ALJ found the following facts critical to the final determination:

• County Requirements: It was undisputed that La Paz County requires pool fences to be a minimum of five feet in height.

• Board Recognition: During the June 21 meeting, the Board acknowledged the County’s five-foot requirement and received a legal opinion stating that CC&Rs do not prohibit pools on community lots.

• ALJ Determination: The ALJ concluded that the Board did approve a plan involving a fence of at least five feet in height to ensure compliance with the County ordinance.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis and Conclusions of Law

Supremacy of Law over CC&Rs

The primary legal conclusion of the ALJ is that municipal ordinances take precedence over private restrictive covenants when the two are in direct conflict.

• Compliance Necessity: The Association is legally required to comply with County ordinances. It cannot be compelled by its members to enforce CC&R provisions (the four-foot height limit) that would cause a homeowner to violate safety laws (the five-foot pool fence requirement).

• Appropriateness of Action: Because the Board acted to align its approval with legal mandates, its decision was deemed appropriate.

Prevailing Party and Attorney Fees

Despite the ruling in favor of the Association, the Respondent’s request for attorney fees was denied based on the following:

• Statutory Limitations: Under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, attorney fees are awardable in an “action.” However, citing Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., the ALJ noted that an administrative proceeding does not constitute an “action” for the purposes of this statute.

• Lack of Governing Authority: The Association failed to cite any specific provision in its own governing documents that would allow for the recovery of fees or costs in this type of administrative proceeding.

——————————————————————————–

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that no action is required of the Association regarding Mr. Holzman’s Petition. The decision was finalized on October 28, 2008, upholding the Association’s right to prioritize county safety ordinances over the height restrictions found in the CC&Rs.

Study Guide: Holzman v. Emerald Springs Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between Andrew Holzman and the Emerald Springs Homeowners Association. It explores the legal conflict between community-specific Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and municipal ordinances, specifically regarding property improvements and safety requirements.

Short-Answer Quiz

1. What was the primary legal conflict at the center of this dispute?

2. Identify the specific sections of the Emerald Springs CC&Rs that the Petitioner alleged were being violated.

3. What were the specific height and material requirements for fences as outlined in Section 3.27 of the CC&Rs?

4. Why did Andrew Holzman object to the proposed fence on Lot 23?

5. How did the Board meeting on June 21, 2008, contribute to the dispute?

6. What was the legal justification for the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling in favor of the Homeowners Association regarding fence height?

7. Describe the conflicting testimony regarding the existence of “plans” for the pool on Lot 23.

8. What role did Judy Jerrels’ emails play in the Board’s defense?

9. On what grounds did the ALJ deny the Respondent’s request for attorney fees?

10. What are the requirements for a party to appeal this final administrative decision?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

Question

Answer

The conflict involved a discrepancy between the Emerald Springs CC&Rs, which limited certain fences to 4 feet in height, and a La Paz County ordinance, which mandated that pool fences be a minimum of 5 feet in height. The case questioned whether an HOA could be forced to follow its own rules when they contradict local law.

The Petitioner alleged violations of Section 3.16(1), regarding fence heights and types for properties extending toward the river, and Section 3.27, which governs the height and construction materials for back, front, and side yard fences.

Under Section 3.27, back and front yard fences were restricted to a 4-foot maximum height and required an “open type” design. Side yard fences were permitted to be up to 6 feet in height and could be constructed of wood, concrete block, or similar materials.

Holzman, residing on Lot 24, was concerned that a 5-foot fence installed by his neighbors on Lot 23 would obstruct his view of the Colorado River. He also claimed the neighbors had previously agreed to move the pool and eventually remove the fence.

During this meeting, the Board conditionally approved the concept of a pool for Lot 23. While the Petitioner argued this constituted a formal approval of a fence violating CC&Rs, the Board maintained it was a conceptual approval contingent on future engineering surveys and updated landscaping plans.

The ALJ concluded that the Association cannot be compelled to abide by CC&R provisions that are contrary to law. Because the County ordinance required a 5-foot minimum for pool safety, that law superseded the 4-foot restriction in the CC&Rs.

Holzman contended that by conditionally approving “plans,” the Board had authorized specific construction. Conversely, Board President Sherri Mehrver testified that no formal written plans or engineering surveys had been submitted yet, and the “plans” mentioned in minutes referred only to a diagram.

Jerrels’ emails from July 17, 2008, suggested that revised plans were still expected from the owners of Lot 23. This supported the Board’s argument that they had not yet given final approval to specific construction details, such as side yard fencing materials or exact height.

The ALJ ruled that an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, which is the statute used to award attorney fees. Additionally, the Association failed to provide any provision within its own governing documents that allowed for such an award in this type of proceeding.

A party must commence an action to review the decision by filing a complaint within 35 days of the decision being served. Service is considered complete upon personal delivery or five days after the decision is mailed to the party’s last known address.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. The Supremacy of Law over Private Agreements: Analyze the ALJ’s decision that Emerald Springs could not be compelled to follow CC&Rs that contradict County ordinances. Discuss the implications this has for homeowners associations when drafting and enforcing private community standards.

2. Evidentiary Interpretation of Board Minutes: Evaluate the weight given to the June 21, 2008, Board minutes. How did the phrasing “conditionally approved plans” create ambiguity, and how did the ALJ reconcile this phrasing with the testimony of Ms. Mehrver and the emails of Ms. Jerrels?

3. Property Rights and View Obstruction: Andrew Holzman’s primary grievance was the obstruction of his river view. Discuss the balance between an individual’s aesthetic enjoyment of their property and the legal necessity of safety regulations (like pool fencing) as presented in the case.

4. Administrative vs. Judicial Proceedings: Using the ALJ’s ruling on attorney fees as a baseline, compare the legal nature of an administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings to a standard civil “action.” Why does the law distinguish between the two regarding the recovery of legal costs?

5. The Role of Conditional Approval in Governance: The Board approved the “concept” of the Dekens’ pool while awaiting further surveys. Discuss the risks and benefits of HOAs granting conditional approvals before receiving finalized engineering and landscaping plans.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

• A.R.S. § 12-341.01: A specific Arizona Revised Statute regarding the recovery of attorney fees; the ALJ ruled this did not apply to administrative hearings.

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over administrative hearings, such as Lewis D. Kowal in this matter, to adjudicate disputes involving state agency actions or regulated communities.

• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The governing documents of a homeowners association that dictate the rules for property use, maintenance, and architectural standards within the community.

• Conditional Approval: A status granted to a project or plan that is accepted in principle but requires further documentation, surveys, or modifications before final authorization.

• Lot 23: The property owned by the Dekens, where the proposed pool and fence were to be installed.

• Lot 24: The property owned by the Petitioner, Andrew Holzman, located adjacent to Lot 23.

• Open Type Face Fencing: A style of fencing required by the Emerald Springs CC&Rs for certain areas to preserve views; contrasted with solid walls or blocks.

• Ordinance: A law or regulation enacted by a municipal body, such as La Paz County, which in this case mandated specific heights for pool safety fences.

• Petitioner: The party who initiates the legal proceeding or appeal; in this case, Andrew Holzman.

• Respondent: The party against whom a legal petition is filed; in this case, the Emerald Springs Homeowners Association.

When Rules Collide: 3 Surprising Lessons from the Emerald Springs HOA Legal Battle

I. Introduction: The Battle for the View

In the world of deed-restricted communities, homeowners often pay a significant premium for aesthetic certainty. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are designed to offer a guarantee that a neighbor’s renovation will not infringe upon a skyline or a river view. However, a fundamental tension exists between these private restrictive covenants and the police power of local government.

This conflict reached a boiling point in Holzman v. Emerald Springs Homeowners Association, a dispute that began when a homeowner sought to protect his view of the Colorado River from a neighbor’s proposed pool and safety fence. The case, heard before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), provides a sobering look at the hierarchy of legal authority and the procedural traps that can leave an association vulnerable.

II. Takeaway 1: The Supremacy of Municipal Safety Ordinances

The central dispute in Holzman involved a direct contradiction between the Emerald Springs CC&Rs and La Paz County law. Sections 3.16 and 3.27 of the community’s governing documents were explicit: fences located 130 feet from the front property line and extending toward the river were capped at four feet in height. These provisions were intended to maintain a “step-down” effect to preserve the scenic corridor.

However, the owners of Lot 23 proposed a pool, and La Paz County ordinance required all pool enclosures to be a minimum of five feet in height for public safety. The ALJ determined that when a private contract (the CC&Rs) and a government safety ordinance collide, the ordinance prevails.

This creates a profound “Catch-22” for both associations and homeowners. A buyer may invest in a property specifically for its contractually protected views, yet that property right can be effectively extinguished by a change in local safety codes. The HOA, meanwhile, finds itself in the ironic position of being legally compelled to allow—and even facilitate—a violation of its own governing contract.

III. Takeaway 2: The Power of Admissions and Informal Minutes

The Holzman case underscores the danger of informal board governance and the legal weight of internal communications. During the June 21, 2008, Board meeting, the association discussed the pool project on Lot 23. The Petitioner, Andrew Holzman, attended telephonically and was unable to see the visual aids presented.

While the Association later argued that it had only approved a “concept” and that no formal plans were submitted, evidence suggested otherwise. A July 17, 2008, email from the Association’s secretary, Judy Jerrels, proved decisive. In the email, Jerrels admitted that “plans were passed around at the meeting for the attending membership to view.” This admission undermined the Board’s defense and led the ALJ to conclude that a “conditional approval” had indeed occurred.

For HOA boards, the lesson is clear: any recognition of a project in official minutes or officer correspondence can be construed as a formal action. The distinction between a “concept” and a “plan” is often lost if the administrative record shows the Board allowed the project to move forward.

IV. Takeaway 3: Winning the Merits Does Not Guarantee Legal Fees

Perhaps the most frustrating outcome for the Emerald Springs HOA was the financial resolution. Although the Association successfully defended its decision to follow county law, and the ALJ ruled that the Petitioner was not the prevailing party, the HOA was denied the recovery of its attorney fees.

The ALJ cited a critical distinction in Arizona law regarding fee shifting. Under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, fees are generally awardable to the prevailing party in “actions” arising out of contract. However, citing Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., the ALJ noted that an administrative hearing is not an “action” for the purposes of that statute.

To avoid being left with a significant legal bill even after a victory, associations must ensure their governing documents are specifically tailored for administrative forums. To maximize the chances of fee recovery, associations should prioritize:

• Explicit Provision for Administrative Forums: CC&Rs should explicitly state that the prevailing party is entitled to fees in any “legal proceeding, including administrative hearings.”

• Broad Definition of “Action”: Governing documents should define “action” or “litigation” to encompass Department of Real Estate or other administrative adjudications.

• Specific Statutory Citations: Ensure that any demand for fees references both contract law and the specific language of the association’s bylaws.

V. Conclusion: The Reality of Deed-Restricted Living

The Holzman v. Emerald Springs decision serves as a clinical reminder that HOA governance does not exist in a vacuum. While CC&Rs are binding private contracts that provide a sense of community control, they remain subordinate to the requirements of public safety and local government.

Ultimately, the case highlights the fragility of aesthetic protections when they meet the “police power” of the state. It forces a difficult realization for every resident of a common-interest community: If your community’s safety and your community’s aesthetics are in direct conflict, which one would you expect the law to choose? As the Emerald Springs battle demonstrates, public safety and municipal law will prevail every time.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Andrew Holzman (petitioner)
    Owner of Lot 24; appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Jason E. Smith (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Represented Emerald Springs Homeowners Association
  • Sherri Mehrver (witness)
    Emerald Springs Homeowners Association
    Former Board President; testified at hearing
  • Judy Jerrels (board member)
    Emerald Springs Homeowners Association
    Secretary of the Association

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Waymen Dekens (neighbor)
    Owner of Lot 23; neighbor proposing the pool/fence
  • Carolyn Dekens (neighbor)
    Owner of Lot 23; neighbor proposing the pool/fence
  • Robert Barger (agency official)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy
  • Debra Blake (agency official)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy; Attention line

James, Lon vs. Corte Bella Country Club Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H089001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-09-25
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Petition was dismissed. The claim regarding the Bylaws was precluded by mandatory ADR provisions in the CC&Rs. The claim regarding the open meeting statute was dismissed because an in camera review proved the closed meeting fell within valid statutory exceptions (personnel matters).
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lon James Counsel —
Respondent Corte Bella Country Club Association Counsel Angela Potts

Alleged Violations

Section 3.14
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed. The claim regarding the Bylaws was precluded by mandatory ADR provisions in the CC&Rs. The claim regarding the open meeting statute was dismissed because an in camera review proved the closed meeting fell within valid statutory exceptions (personnel matters).

Why this result: Mandatory ADR clause in governing documents and statutory exceptions for closed meetings applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Allegation of Violation of Sec 3.14 of Bylaws

Petitioner alleged that the Board held a closed meeting to discuss and vote on a proposal to realign the Board, refusing homeowner permission to attend.

Orders: Dismissed based on requirement of Article XVII of CC&Rs that requires such disputes be resolved by alternative dispute resolution.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Bylaws Section 3.14
  • CC&Rs Article XVII

Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (open meeting)

Petitioner alleged the May 5, 2008 closed meeting violated open meeting statutes.

Orders: Dismissed; the meeting fell within statutory exceptions.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H089001-BFS Decision – 199085.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:34:54 (96.0 KB)

08F-H089001-BFS Decision – 199085.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:36 (96.0 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Lon James v. Corte Bella Country Club Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative law decision (Case No. 08F-H089001-BFS) regarding a dispute between Lon James (Petitioner) and the Corte Bella Country Club Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated community bylaws and Arizona state law by holding a closed Board meeting on May 5, 2008.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Lewis D. Kowal, dismissed the petition in its entirety. The ruling was based on two primary factors:

1. Jurisdictional Preclusion: Claims regarding Bylaw violations were subject to mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as per the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

2. Statutory Compliance: An in camera review of evidence determined that the closed meeting held by the Board fell within the legal exceptions provided by A.R.S. § 33-1804, specifically regarding personnel matters and confidential information.

Case Overview and Procedural History

The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety under A.R.S. 41-2198.01 (B). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent held a closed meeting to vote on board realignment, refusing homeowner participation in violation of Community Bylaws (Section 3.14) and A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

08F-H089001-BFS

Petitioner

Lon James

Respondent

Corte Bella Country Club Association

Hearing Date

September 16, 2008

Presiding Judge

Lewis D. Kowal

Final Action

Petition Dismissed

Analysis of Legal Issues and Rulings

1. Alleged Violation of Section 3.14 of Community Bylaws

The Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to adhere to the open meeting requirements established in the community’s own bylaws.

• Respondent’s Defense: The Respondent moved for dismissal of this claim, citing Article XVII of the CC&Rs, which mandates that disputes relating to the interpretation or enforcement of governing documents must be resolved via ADR.

• Petitioner’s Counter-Argument: The Petitioner contended that ADR provisions only applied to the design or construction of property improvements.

• Judicial Conclusion: The ALJ found that the ADR provisions should be read in the “disjunctive.” The provisions apply not only to construction improvements but also to claims arising from the “interpretation, application or enforcement” of the Respondent’s governing documents. Consequently, the claim was precluded from the administrative hearing.

2. Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law)

The core of the dispute involved a meeting held on May 5, 2008, from which homeowners were excluded.

• Legal Exceptions: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), boards may hold closed meetings for specific reasons. The Respondent cited the following exceptions:

◦ A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2): Pending or contemplated litigation.

◦ A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(3): Personal, health, or financial information about an individual member, employee, or contractor.

◦ A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4): Matters relating to job performance, compensation, or specific complaints against an individual employee or contractor.

3. Evidentiary Review and Methodology

To determine if the closed meeting was legal without disclosing confidential information to the Petitioner, the ALJ utilized an in camera review process.

• Review of Documents: The Respondent submitted eleven documents under seal. The Respondent argued that presenting this evidence in open court would force the disclosure of information they were legally required to keep confidential.

• Judicial Precedent: The ALJ cited Griffis v. Pinal County and Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (2006) as guidance for performing an in camera review to balance the principles of public hearings against the necessity of preserving confidentiality.

• Findings: Following the review, the ALJ informed the parties that the meeting was “properly held as a closed meeting” because the purpose fell within at least one of the statutory exceptions.

• Petitioner’s Offer of Proof: The Petitioner was allowed to make an “Offer of Proof” regarding the evidence he would have presented. The ALJ noted that some of the information in the Petitioner’s own offer actually supported the conclusion that the meeting involved a personnel matter, which is a permissible reason for a closed session.

Final Determinations and Financial Rulings

Dismissal of the Petition

The ALJ issued a ruling from the bench dismissing the petition. The Petitioner was not considered the prevailing party and was therefore denied reimbursement for his filing fee.

Request for Attorneys’ Fees

In its response to the petition, the Respondent requested an award for attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. The ALJ denied this request based on the following:

• Definition of “Action”: Citing Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., the ALJ noted that an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” in the context of A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

• Governing Documents: The Respondent failed to cite any specific provision within its own governing documents that would provide for an award of fees in such a proceeding.

Final Order

The petition was dismissed. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A), this order constitutes the final administrative decision. While it is not subject to a request for rehearing, it may be appealed to the Superior Court within thirty-five days of service.

Administrative Law Study Guide: Lon James v. Corte Bella Country Club Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law proceedings between Petitioner Lon James and Respondent Corte Bella Country Club Association (No. 08F-H089001-BFS). It examines the legal interpretations of association bylaws, open meeting statutes, and the procedural mechanisms used by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to resolve disputes within a country club association.

Section 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.

1. What primary allegation did the Petitioner make regarding the board meeting held on May 5, 2008?

2. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge preclude the claim regarding the violation of Section 3.14 of the Bylaws?

3. How did the Respondent’s interpretation of Article XVII of the CC&Rs differ from the Petitioner’s interpretation?

4. What was the Respondent’s justification for requesting an “in camera review” of specific documents?

5. Which Arizona Supreme Court case did the ALJ use as guidance for conducting an in camera review, and what was that case about?

6. According to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), what are the three specific exceptions cited by the Respondent for holding a closed meeting?

7. What is an “Offer of Proof,” and how did the Petitioner’s offer impact the ALJ’s decision?

8. Why did the ALJ determine that the Respondent was not entitled to an award for attorney’s fees?

9. What is the finality status of the Order issued by ALJ Lewis D. Kowal, and is it subject to a rehearing?

10. What are the specific requirements and timelines for a party wishing to appeal this final administrative decision?

——————————————————————————–

Section 2: Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent held a closed Board Meeting to discuss and vote on a proposal to realign the Board. He argued that refusing homeowners permission to attend or participate violated Community Bylaws 3.14 and A.R.S. § 33-1804.

2. The ALJ precluded this claim because Article XVII of the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) requires such disputes to be resolved by alternative dispute resolution (ADR). This mandatory provision barred the claim from being adjudicated in the current administrative hearing.

3. The Petitioner argued that the ADR provisions in Article XVII only related to the design or construction of property improvements. The Respondent argued the provisions should be read disjunctively, applying to any claims relating to the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the governing documents.

4. The Respondent asserted that the evidence justifying the closed meeting was inextricably intertwined with confidential information that could not be disclosed publicly. They requested an in camera review so the ALJ could verify the meeting’s legality without exposing protected data.

5. The ALJ cited Griffis v. Pinal County and Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (2006). In that case, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for an in camera review to determine if personal emails on a government system were considered public records.

6. The exceptions included: (2) pending or contemplated litigation; (3) personal, health, or financial information about an individual member, employee, or contractor; and (4) matters relating to job performance, compensation, or specific complaints against an individual employee.

7. An Offer of Proof is a summary of testimonial and documentary evidence a party would have presented; in this case, the Petitioner’s offer actually supported the conclusion that the meeting fell under a personnel matter exception. It did not change the ALJ’s finding that the closed meeting was held in accordance with the law.

8. The ALJ ruled that an administrative proceeding is not an “action” under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, which is necessary for attorney’s fees to be awardable. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to cite any provision in its own governing documents that provided for such an award in this type of proceeding.

9. The Order is the final administrative decision and is not subject to a request for rehearing under A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A). It is considered enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.

10. A party may appeal by filing a complaint within thirty-five days of the date the decision was served. Service is considered complete upon personal delivery or five days after the final decision is mailed to the party’s last known address.

——————————————————————————–

Section 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case details to provide in-depth analysis for the following prompts.

1. Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Analyze the significance of the ALJ’s decision to dismiss the Bylaw violation claim based on the CC&Rs. Discuss how the interpretation of “disjunctive” language in governing documents can impact a member’s right to an administrative hearing versus mandatory mediation or arbitration.

2. Transparency vs. Confidentiality: Evaluate the tension between the “open meeting” requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 and the exceptions allowed for board meetings. Discuss whether the in camera review process is an effective compromise for protecting individual privacy while ensuring association accountability.

3. The Role of Judicial Precedent in Administrative Law: Examine how the ALJ utilized Griffis v. Pinal County to justify procedural steps in this case. Why is it important for administrative law judges to look to Supreme Court decisions regarding public records when handling private association disputes?

4. Statutory Interpretation of “Action”: Contrast the legal definitions of an “administrative proceeding” and an “action” as they relate to the recovery of attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. What are the implications for litigants who prevail in one forum versus the other?

5. Burden of Proof and the “Offer of Proof”: Discuss the procedural purpose of an Offer of Proof in a hearing. Analyze the irony in this case where the Petitioner’s own offer of proof reinforced the Respondent’s legal standing regarding the “personnel matter” exception.

——————————————————————————–

Section 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1804

The Arizona Revised Statute governing the requirement for open meetings within certain associations, including specific legal exceptions.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

A process, such as mediation or arbitration, required by governing documents to resolve disputes outside of traditional court or administrative hearings.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that outline the rules and regulations of a planned community or association.

In Camera Review

A private review of sensitive or confidential documents by a judge in their chambers (or “in chambers”) to determine their relevance or admissibility without disclosing them to the opposing party or the public.

Offer of Proof

A presentation made to the judge for the record when a party is not permitted to introduce certain evidence or testimony, describing what that evidence would have shown.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a petition or legal claim in an administrative hearing (in this case, Lon James).

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or legal claim is filed (in this case, Corte Bella Country Club Association).

Under Seal

Records or documents that are kept confidential and are not available for public inspection, often used during an in camera review.

Prevailing Party

The party in a legal proceeding that wins the case; here, the ALJ determined the Petitioner was not the prevailing party and thus not entitled to fee reimbursement.

Disjunctive

A grammatical or legal term indicating that items in a list (often separated by “or”) should be considered separately or as alternatives rather than collectively.

Behind Closed Doors: What a Recent Arizona HOA Ruling Reveals About Your Rights as a Homeowner

Most homeowners buy into a community under the comforting illusion that their dues purchase a front-row seat to the governance of their neighborhood. There is a common expectation that transparency is the default setting and that “open meeting” laws provide an unbreakable shield against secret governance.

In the arena of HOA law, however, transparency is often the first casualty of a well-drafted executive session. The case of Lon James vs. Corte Bella Country Club Association serves as a sobering cautionary tale of a “legal lockout.” When James challenged a closed-door meeting held to “realign the board,” he discovered that the legal framework governing HOAs often prioritizes board confidentiality over homeowner participation, leaving residents on the outside looking in.

This ruling highlights four critical takeaways that reveal just how tilted the playing field can be when a homeowner dares to challenge the association’s inner workings.

Takeaway 1: The “Open Meeting” Law Has Serious Loopholes

While A.R.S. § 33-1804 generally mandates that board meetings remain open to all members, the law provides broad exceptions that act as a legal shield for boards. In the Corte Bella case, the board met privately to discuss a proposal to “realign the board.” To a homeowner, a structural change in leadership sounds like a matter of public interest. To the law, however, it is frequently a protected personnel matter.

The ultimate irony in this case? The Petitioner’s own “Offer of Proof”—the evidence he intended to use to win—actually backfired. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that James’s own testimony unintentionally supported the HOA’s claim that the meeting was legally closed as a personnel matter. It is a high-value lesson for any litigant: sometimes your own evidence proves the board’s right to exclude you.

Takeaway 2: The Judge Can See Evidence You Can’t (The In Camera Review)

One of the most significant tactical disadvantages a homeowner faces is the “In Camera Review.” To determine if the board’s secrecy was justified, the judge reviewed 11 sealed documents privately. James was never allowed to see the very evidence being used to dismiss his case.

This “secret” review is not an automatic right for associations; it is a hard-fought legal maneuver. In fact, the ALJ initially refused the HOA’s request for the review. It was only after a persuasive oral argument that the judge pivoted, balancing public hearing principles against the board’s need for confidentiality. Using the precedent of Griffis v. Pinal County, the court confirmed that a judge can review documents behind a “black box” to determine if they fall under public record exceptions. For the homeowner, this means fighting an opponent when the most critical evidence is invisible to you.

Takeaway 3: Your Right to Sue May Be Precluded by Your Own CC&Rs

Before you ever get to argue the merits of your case, you must survive the trapdoors buried in your own governing documents. In this case, James’s claim regarding a violation of Section 3.14 of the Bylaws was dismissed before it even reached the hearing stage.

The HOA successfully argued that Article XVII of the CC&Rs mandated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The judge applied a “disjunctive” reading of the law—meaning that because the document used the word “or,” the ADR requirement wasn’t restricted to hammers-and-nails construction issues. Instead, it applied to any claim relating to the interpretation or application of the governing documents. This is a common “ADR trap”: if your CC&Rs are written this way, your path to a standard administrative hearing is effectively blocked.

Action Item: Review your CC&Rs specifically for “disjunctive” language in your ADR or arbitration clauses. If the clause applies to construction or interpretation, you may be signing away your right to a public day in court.

Takeaway 4: Winning Doesn’t Mean Your Legal Bills Are Paid

In the administrative arena, victory often feels like a hollow financial win. In the Corte Bella ruling, even though the HOA successfully defended its actions and saw the petition dismissed, the judge denied their request for attorney’s fees.

The reasoning is a technicality that every homeowner should memorize: an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” under Arizona law. Therefore, the statutes that typically allow a winner to recover fees in a contract-related lawsuit simply do not apply. This creates an administrative dead-end where both sides typically bear their own costs regardless of the outcome, making these battles a “lose-lose” for the bank accounts of both the individual and the community at large.

Conclusion: The Price of Participation

The Corte Bella ruling reinforces the substantial power HOA boards wield. By utilizing statutory exceptions, securing private judicial reviews, and leaning on mandatory ADR clauses, boards can effectively shield their most critical decisions from member oversight.

This leaves us with a difficult reality regarding the price of participation. If the most significant board decisions—those involving board realignment, litigation, and personnel—are legally permitted to occur behind closed doors, how can homeowners truly ensure accountability? Understanding these legal boundaries isn’t just about winning a case; it’s about recognizing the steep climb required to see what’s happening behind the curtain.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lon James (Petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Angela Potts (Respondent Attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmart, LLC
    Esq.

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing/service list
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing/service list

Bittner, Elmer -v- Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H088018-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-09-02
Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully
Outcome The ALJ found that the Association's governing documents did not authorize unequal assessments based on garage size. The Association was ordered to cease the practice and refund the Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Elmer Bittner Counsel —
Respondent Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association Counsel Franklyn D. Jeans, Esq. and Nicole S. Cassett, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Declaration Paragraph 32.6

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Association's governing documents did not authorize unequal assessments based on garage size. The Association was ordered to cease the practice and refund the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unequal Assessments based on garage size

Petitioner challenged the Association's practice of charging higher assessments for units with 2-car garages compared to 1-car garages. The Respondent admitted the governing documents did not support this allocation.

Orders: Respondent shall abide by its governing documents in future assessments of Unit owners irrespective of the size of a Unit owner's garage unless documents are amended.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198
  • Declaration Paragraph 32.6

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H088018-BFS Decision – 197550.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:34:47 (102.0 KB)

08F-H088018-BFS Decision – 197550.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:30 (102.0 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Bittner vs. Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative law judge (ALJ) decision in the matter of Elmer Bittner vs. Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association (Case No. 08F-H088018-BFS). The dispute centered on whether the Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association (Respondent) possessed the legal authority under its governing documents to charge unequal common element dues based on the number of garage spaces in a unit.

The ALJ determined that the Respondent’s governing documents do not authorize tiered assessments based on garage size. Despite the Respondent’s long-standing practice of charging higher rates for two-car garage units, the court found no legal basis for this distinction in the Association’s Declaration or subsequent amendments. Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to cease unequal assessments and reimburse the Petitioner for his filing fees.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Jurisdiction

Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Elmer Bittner, owner of a residence with a two-car garage within the Greenfield Glen development in Mesa, Arizona.

• Respondent: Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association, an entity whose powers are subject to specific governing documents and Arizona law.

Statutory Authority

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), which authorizes the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to receive petitions regarding disputes between homeowners’ associations and their members. The jurisdiction of the Office is limited to ensuring compliance with A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16 and the specific planned community documents of the association.

——————————————————————————–

The Core Dispute: Unequal Assessments

The Petitioner challenged a dues structure that had been in place since approximately March 22, 1988. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated the condominium and community documents by implementing the following monthly rate disparity:

Unit Type

Common Element Dues

2-Car Garage Unit

$70.58

1-Car Garage Unit

$57.75

Procedural Limitation

The ALJ ruled that the Petition could only address issues occurring after September 21, 2006, the effective date of the relevant statutes (A.R.S. § 41-2198, et seq.). The central legal question was narrowed to whether the Respondent’s governing documents provided the authority since September 2006 to assess owners at different rates based on garage capacity.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Governing Documents

The ALJ reviewed several key documents to determine the Respondent’s authority:

1. Original Declaration (1985): The Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

2. Amendments (1986, 1989, 1994): Various recorded amendments to the original Declaration.

3. Clarification and Amendment Agreement (1987): Specifically, the addition of Paragraph 32.6.

Findings Regarding Paragraph 32.6

The Respondent cited Paragraph 32.6 as a potential source of authority. However, the ALJ’s analysis found this paragraph irrelevant to the current assessment practice:

• Scope: Paragraph 32.6 pertains specifically to the “Platting of Additional Property.”

• Purpose: It outlines how the “share of Common Expenses” should be calculated for units added to the Declaration at a later date, providing a formula for pro-rata portions if the number of units added differs from the original platting plan.

• Application: The document specifies that the calculation examples provided were intended only to illustrate the method for calculating assessments for added units and were not intended to reflect actual dollar amounts or general assessment practices for existing units.

——————————————————————————–

Respondent’s Admissions and Internal Challenges

In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent made several critical admissions that undermined its legal position:

• Lack of Support: The Respondent admitted that the Petitioner’s claim regarding unequal assessments was “endemic of a problem” and that the practice was not supported by Section 32.6 or any other provision in the Declaration.

• Loss of Institutional Knowledge: The Respondent stated that “no one currently serving on the Board of Directors… or Unit owners available to the Board can explain what Section 32.6 was intended to cover or how it was intended to be applied.”

• Attempted Reformation: The Board indicated they were attempting to pass an amendment to align the Declaration with past assessment practices. However, they expressed “fear” that the amendment would not pass, as it requires a 75% favorable vote of all unit owners.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusions of Law and Final Order

Legal Conclusions

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner carried the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

2. Unauthorized Assessments: The Respondent’s governing documents do not grant the authority to impose unequal assessments based on whether a unit has a one-car or two-car garage.

3. Compliance: The Respondent must abide by its governing documents, which, in their current state, require equal assessments.

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following mandates:

• Cease Unequal Assessments: The Respondent must assess all unit owners equally, regardless of garage size, unless and until the governing documents are legally amended to provide for unequal assessments.

• Reimbursement of Fees: As the prevailing party, the Petitioner is entitled to the recovery of his filing fee. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner $550.00 within 30 days of the decision (September 2, 2008).

• Finality: This decision is the final administrative action and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.

Study Guide: Elmer Bittner vs. Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Elmer Bittner and the Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association. It examines the legal dispute regarding assessment dues, the interpretation of governing documents, and the final decision rendered by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Review Quiz

1. What was the core allegation made by Elmer Bittner in his petition against the Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association? Elmer Bittner alleged that the Association changed common element dues from an equal rate to an unequal rate based on garage size. Specifically, he challenged the assessment of $70.58 for units with two-car garages compared to $57.75 for units with one-car garages, arguing this violated the condominium’s governing documents and Arizona law.

2. Which state agencies were involved in the processing and adjudication of this dispute? The Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety is authorized by statute to receive petitions regarding disputes between homeowner associations and their members. Once received, these petitions are forwarded to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for a formal hearing and decision.

3. Why was the scope of the Administrative Law Judge’s review limited to issues occurring after September 21, 2006? The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the petition could not address issues predating the effective date of A.R.S. § 41-2198, et seq. Because this specific statute became effective on September 21, 2006, the judge narrowed the dispute to whether the Association had the authority to assess unequal rates from that date forward.

4. According to the Findings of Fact, what are the primary governing documents of the Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association? The governing documents include the original 1985 Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, as well as several amendments. These amendments were recorded in Maricopa County in February 1986, August 1987, August 1989, and December 1994.

5. How did the 1987 Clarification and Amendment Agreement (Paragraph 32.6) describe the calculation of assessments for added units? Paragraph 32.6 stated that the share of common expenses for units added to the Declaration must be equal to the pro rata portion that would have been borne if the property had been platted according to the original Exhibit “B.” It provided a mathematical example showing that if a parcel intended for 21 units was replatted for 14, the expenses would be redistributed so the total amount collected remained consistent with the original plan.

6. What admission did the Respondent make in its Answer regarding the practice of unequal assessments? The Association admitted that it had levied unequal assessments based on garage spaces for a number of years. However, it explicitly stated that this practice was not supported by Section 32.6 or any other provision in the Declaration, and that current board members could not explain the original intent of that section.

7. What plan did the Association’s Board of Directors outline to resolve the discrepancy between their practices and the Declaration? The Board planned to submit an amendment to the Unit owners to align the Declaration with past assessment practices. If the required seventy-five percent favorable vote was not obtained, the Board intended to appeal to the Superior Court of Maricopa County to reform the Declaration.

8. What is the legal standard of proof required in this administrative matter, and who carries it? Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner (Elmer Bittner) carries the burden of proof. The standard of proof required to prevail in the matter is a preponderance of the evidence.

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final legal conclusion regarding the Association’s authority to charge different rates? The judge concluded that the Respondent’s governing documents, including the specific language in paragraph 32.6, did not grant the Association the authority to impose unequal assessments based on garage size. Consequently, the Association was ordered to abide by its documents and assess units equally in the future.

10. Aside from the change in future assessment practices, what financial restitution was ordered? Because the Petitioner was the prevailing party, the judge ordered the Respondent to pay the Petitioner his $550.00 filing fee. This payment was required to be made within 30 days of the date of the decision.

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Answer: The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated governing documents by charging higher common element dues for two-car garage units (70.58)thanforone−cargarageunits(57.75).

2. Answer: The Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (received the petition) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (conducted the formal hearing).

3. Answer: The statute granting the authority for such administrative hearings (A.R.S. § 41-2198) did not become effective until September 21, 2006.

4. Answer: The 1985 Declaration and four subsequent amendments/agreements dated 1986, 1987, 1989, and 1994.

5. Answer: Assessments for added property must be a pro rata portion of common expenses based on the original platting density; if fewer units are built than originally planned, each unit pays a higher share to cover the total expenses.

6. Answer: The Association admitted that unequal assessments were “endemic of a problem” and conceded that no provision in the Declaration actually supported the practice.

7. Answer: They attempted to pass an amendment requiring 75% approval and, if that failed, planned to seek a court-ordered reformation of the Declaration.

8. Answer: The Petitioner carries the burden of proof, and the standard is “preponderance of the evidence.”

9. Answer: The judge found that the governing documents did not authorize unequal assessments and ordered the Association to cease the practice until or unless the documents are legally amended.

10. Answer: The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee within 30 days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Statutory Limitations on Administrative Relief: Discuss the implications of the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling to exclude issues predating September 21, 2006. How does the effective date of a statute (like A.R.S. § 41-2198) impact the ability of a homeowner to seek redress for long-standing association practices?

2. Interpretation of Governing Documents: Analyze the Association’s admission that its assessment practices were not supported by its own Declaration. Why is strict adherence to the written Declaration critical in the management of a homeowners association, and what are the risks of “past assessment practices” that deviate from these documents?

3. The Complexity of Paragraph 32.6: Explain the logic of the “pro rata portion” calculation described in the 1987 Amendment. How does this provision attempt to protect the Association’s budget when the density of a development changes, and why was it insufficient to justify the garage-based assessments in this case?

4. The Amendment Process and Legal Reformation: The Association expressed fear that a 75% vote for an amendment would not pass. Compare the process of member-led amendments to the legal process of “reforming” a Declaration through the Superior Court. What are the democratic and legal hurdles involved in each?

5. The Role of the Petitioner in Administrative Law: Evaluate the role of Elmer Bittner as the Petitioner. Given that he had the legal recourse to sue since 1988 but waited until 2008, discuss how the administrative hearing process provides a different or more accessible avenue for justice compared to traditional litigation.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 41-2198

The Arizona Revised Statute that authorizes the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to receive petitions regarding HOA disputes.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over hearings and makes decisions in disputes involving government agencies.

Assessment

The amount of money a homeowner is required to pay to the association for common expenses and maintenance.

Common Expenses

The costs associated with the operation, maintenance, and repair of the common elements of a condominium or planned community.

Declaration

The primary governing document (CC&Rs) that outlines the rights and responsibilities of the association and the unit owners.

Horizontal Property Regime

A legal structure for property ownership, commonly used for condominiums, where individuals own units and share common areas.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Elmer Bittner).

Platting / Replatting

The process of creating or changing a map (plat) showing the divisions of a piece of land into individual units or lots.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning that the claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Pro Rata

A proportional allocation or distribution based on a specific factor (such as the number of units).

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association).

The 20-Year “Garage Tax”: What One Arizona Homeowner’s Victory Teaches Us About HOA Power

The Hook: The Hidden Cost of Living in an Association

For most residents of planned communities, monthly Homeowners Association (HOA) dues are accepted as a necessary evil—the price of admission for clean streets and shared amenities. We pay them under a contract of trust, assuming the Board is following the law. But what happens when that trust is broken by a David-versus-Goliath struggle against institutional overreach?

Elmer Bittner, a resident of the Greenfield Glen Homeowners Association in Mesa, Arizona, looked at his bill and realized something was fundamentally wrong. For years, he and other residents were being subjected to what can only be described as “unauthorized taxation.” Bittner discovered he was being charged significantly higher monthly dues than his neighbors for one reason: he had a two-car garage. This discovery sparked a legal showdown at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings that exposed how easily an HOA can drift into illegal financial practices under the guise of “tradition.”

Takeaway 1: Longevity Does Not Equal Legality

One of the most alarming aspects of Bittner v. Greenfield Glen is the sheer duration of the injustice. The unequal assessment practice began on March 22, 1988, yet it took until 2008 for a legal ruling to stop it. This 20-year “garage tax” persisted because of institutional inertia—the dangerous tendency of homeowners to assume a rule is valid simply because “that’s the way it’s always been.”

While the unfairness spanned two decades, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) highlighted a critical hurdle for civic-minded homeowners: the law often has a short memory. The ALJ ruled that the case could only address issues arising after September 21, 2006—the effective date of A.R.S. § 41-2198. This serves as a vital lesson: your right to challenge HOA overreach often depends on specific, modern legal tools that may not have existed when the original “tradition” began. The financial discrepancy was stark:

Takeaway 2: The “We Don’t Know Why” Defense

When forced to justify why they were overcharging residents, the Association’s defense was a masterclass in absurdity. In Section 14 of the Findings of Fact, the Board essentially admitted they were enforcing a financial penalty that they themselves did not understand.

The Association attempted to hide behind “Section 32.6” of the governing documents. However, a deeper look at the 1987 Clarification and Amendment Agreement reveals that Section 32.6 was actually titled “Platting of Additional Property.” It was a clause meant to handle the shapes and sizes of units when adding new land to the development—not a license to charge different rates for garage space. The Association’s own admission in their Answer to the Complaint was a stunning display of incompetence:

For a governing body to demand money based on a clause they cannot explain is more than just a mistake; it is a breach of fiduciary duty.

Takeaway 3: The Governing Documents Are Final (Until They Aren’t)

The ALJ made it clear: an HOA must abide by its written documents, regardless of past practices. The Board at Greenfield Glen knew they were on shaky ground and attempted to “align” the documents with their illegal practices through a post-facto amendment. However, they faced a terrifying hurdle: the requirement for a 75% favorable vote of all Unit owners (voting or not).

This “voting or not” provision is a trap for modern homeowners. In this system, a neighbor’s apathy—simply failing to return a ballot—is legally recorded as a “No” vote. This makes reforming even an illegal practice nearly impossible. Rather than admitting fault when the vote seemed likely to fail, the Board planned a secondary aggressive maneuver: they intended to “appeal to the Superior Court… to reform the Declaration.” Essentially, the Board was prepared to spend the community’s own money on high-stakes litigation to force a legal change that would have validated their past unauthorized assessments.

Takeaway 4: The Small Victories Matter

The ruling was a definitive win for homeowner rights. The ALJ didn’t just suggest a change; he issued a mandate. The Association was ordered to cease unequal assessments and refund Bittner’s $550 filing fee.

For the individual homeowner, these administrative hearings are a powerful equalizer. They offer a venue to seek justice without the crushing initial costs of a Superior Court lawsuit. Perhaps most importantly, the ALJ’s decision has “teeth.” The order specifically notes that it is “enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.” This means that if an HOA decides to ignore the ruling and continue its unauthorized taxation, the Board could face the full weight of the judicial system.

Conclusion: A Final Thought for the Modern Homeowner

The victory of Elmer Bittner is a testament to the power of a single homeowner with a copy of the Declaration and the courage to ask “why?” It highlights a disturbing reality: many HOAs operate on a foundation of “tradition” and “past practice” that contradicts the very laws they are sworn to uphold.

If you looked at your HOA’s founding documents today, would the fees you pay actually be in writing, or are you paying for a tradition that doesn’t legally exist?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Elmer Bittner (petitioner)
    Appeared personally

Respondent Side

  • Franklyn D. Jeans (HOA attorney)
    Beus Gilbert, PLC
  • Nicole S. Cassett (HOA attorney)
    Beus Gilbert, PLC

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution
  • Debra Blake (Agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution

Gelb, Chris -v- Casa Contenta Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H088012-BFS
Agency —
Tribunal State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2008-06-30
Administrative Law Judge MGW
Outcome —
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties —

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Chris Gelb Counsel —
Respondent Casa Contenta Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Case Brief: Gelb vs. Casa Contenta Homeowners Association (Decision No. 08F-H088012-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law judge (ALJ) decision in the matter of Chris Gelb vs. Casa Contenta Homeowners Association, heard on June 10, 2008, in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute originated when the Respondent Association applied crushed red rock ground cover to the common and transitional areas adjacent to the Petitioner’s home in Sedona, Arizona.

The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated its governing documents—specifically the "Equal Treatment of Owners" clause—by applying this ground cover to her immediate area without requiring it across the entire subdivision. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish discrimination. The decision clarifies the extent of Association authority over transitional and common areas and defines the limitations of administrative jurisdiction regarding homeowners association (HOA) disputes.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Jurisdictional Limitations of Administrative Hearings

A critical threshold issue in this case was the scope of the Office of Administrative Hearings' jurisdiction. Under A.R.S. §41-2198, the tribunal is strictly limited to hearing evidence regarding:

  • Violations of an Association’s governing documents.
  • Violations of Arizona statutes specifically governing planned unit developments or condominiums.

Consequently, the ALJ dismissed the Petitioner's claims regarding violations of the Restatement (3d) Property: Servitudes and general corporate statutes (A.R.S. §10-3830 and §10-3842), as these do not fall under the specific statutory jurisdiction of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety in this context.

2. Property Classification and Maintenance Authority

The case hinged on the distinction between different types of property within the community. The CC&Rs define four distinct areas, each with varying rights and obligations:

Area Type Ownership Maintenance Responsibility
Dwelling Unit Petitioner Petitioner
Building Envelope Petitioner Petitioner
Transitional Area Petitioner Association
Common Area Association Association

The ALJ found that Article VI, Section 4 of the CC&Rs grants the Design Review Committee "sole discretion" regarding the manner in which transitional areas are maintained. Furthermore, the Association has the authority to apply ground cover of its choosing to these areas, regardless of whether a homeowner has previously landscaped them.

3. The Burden of Proof for Discrimination

To prevail on a claim of discrimination under Article XII, Section 3 ("Equal Treatment of Owners"), the ALJ established a two-fold burden of proof for the Petitioner:

  1. Identification of a Specific Restriction: The Petitioner must show that a specific restriction or condition found within the CC&Rs (not just the Design Guidelines) was imposed upon them.
  2. Evidence of Non-Uniform Application: If a restriction exists, the Petitioner must prove it was imposed on them while being withheld from other owners.

The tribunal concluded that applying crushed rock to areas under Association maintenance authority is an exercise of management rights, not a "restriction" or "condition" imposed upon the owner. Even if some areas of the community had not yet received the rock, the Association's ongoing process to ensure conformity throughout the common areas negated the claim of discriminatory intent.

4. Recovery of Legal Costs and Fees

The decision clarifies the high bar for recovering costs in administrative proceedings. Despite being the prevailing party, the Association was denied attorney’s fees. The ALJ cited Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., which established that an administrative agency is not a "court," and therefore statutes allowing for attorney fees in contract actions (A.R.S. §12-341.01) do not apply to administrative hearings unless specifically authorized by the legislature or the governing documents.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Definition of "Restrictions"

"‘Restrictions’ shall mean the covenants, conditions, restrictions, assessments, easements and liens set forth in this Declaration. The definition does not include restrictions or conditions set forth in the Design Guidelines."

  • Context: The ALJ used this definition to determine whether the Association’s demand for crushed rock constituted a "restriction" under the CC&Rs' non-discrimination clause.
On the Standard of Proof

"Proof by a 'preponderance' means that 'the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.'"

  • Context: This established the legal threshold the Petitioner had to meet to win her case against the Association.
On Association Authority Over Landscaping

"Nothing in the Design Guidelines or the CC&Rs prohibits the Association from applying a ground cover of its choosing to transitional areas or common areas whether previously landscaped by a homeowner or not."

  • Context: This quote confirms the Association's broad power to manage the aesthetic uniformity of the community's exterior areas, even when those areas (like Transitional Areas) are technically owned by the lot owner.
On the Dismissal of Discrimination Claims

"The Association’s application of crushed rock to the common area and transitional area adjacent to Petitioner’s home is neither a restriction, nor a condition, and even if it was, it is certainly not a condition or restriction imposed on Petitioner."

  • Context: The ALJ clarifies that because the Association was acting on property it was obligated to maintain, its actions did not legally impact the Petitioner’s rights as an owner.

Actionable Insights

  • Clarify Maintenance Boundaries: Associations and owners should clearly distinguish between "Building Envelopes" (owner-maintained) and "Transitional Areas" (Association-maintained). Disputes often arise from a misunderstanding of who has the final say over the aesthetics of land owned by the member but maintained by the HOA.
  • Exercise of Discretion is Not Discrimination: The "Equal Treatment" clause does not require an Association to perform maintenance on every lot simultaneously. As long as the Association is working toward a uniform standard (e.g., applying crushed rock community-wide over time), temporary variations in landscaping do not constitute legal discrimination.
  • Document Final Approvals: The Petitioner’s case was weakened by a failure to provide evidence of "final approval" from the Design Review Committee. Owners should ensure all landscape plans and construction phases receive written final sign-offs to prevent retroactive requirements by the Association.
  • Administrative Limitations: Parties entering the Office of Administrative Hearings should be aware that their claims must be rooted strictly in the CC&Rs or specific HOA statutes. General legal theories (like those found in the Restatements of Law) may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, prevailing parties should not expect to recover attorney's fees in this venue unless there is an explicit enforcement provision in the CC&Rs applicable to the specific action.

Study Guide: Gelb v. Casa Contenta Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Chris Gelb vs. Casa Contenta Homeowners Association (No. 08F-H088012-BFS). It covers the legal frameworks, property definitions, and judicial reasoning presented in the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision.

Core Case Overview

The case centers on a dispute between Chris Gelb (Petitioner) and the Casa Contenta Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Association practiced discrimination by applying crushed red rock ground cover to the common and transitional areas adjacent to her home while not requiring the same for all areas within the subdivision.

Key Legal Frameworks
  • A.R.S. §41-2198.01(B): The statute under which the petition was filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
  • Article XII, Section 3 (CC&Rs): The "Equal Treatment of Owners" clause, which mandates that restrictions be applied to all owners without discrimination.
  • Jurisdictional Limits: The Office of Administrative Hearings only has jurisdiction over violations of an Association’s governing documents or statutes governing planned unit developments/condominiums.

Property Classifications and Obligations

The Community's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) define four distinct areas of real property, each with specific ownership and maintenance rules:

Property Type Ownership Maintenance Responsibility Definition
Dwelling Unit Petitioner Petitioner The area within the walls of the Petitioner’s home.
Building Envelope Petitioner Petitioner The plot of land owned by the individual upon which the dwelling is constructed.
Transitional Area Petitioner Association The area between the common area/building envelope line and the dwelling unit walls, visible from other areas.
Common Area Association Association All areas outside of the building envelope lines.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Why were the Petitioner’s claims regarding the Restatements of Law and A.R.S. §10-3830/§10-3842 dismissed prior to the final decision? The Office of Administrative Hearings only has jurisdiction under A.R.S. §41-2198 to hear evidence regarding violations of an Association's governing documents or specific statutes governing planned unit developments or condominiums. These other claims fell outside that legal authority.

2. What is the "two-fold" burden of proof required to establish discriminatory application of CC&Rs? The Petitioner must show: (1) that a specific restriction or condition contained in the CC&Rs was imposed upon them, and (2) that the same restriction or condition was not imposed upon other owners.

3. How do the CC&Rs define "Restrictions"? According to Article I, Section 25, "Restrictions" mean the covenants, conditions, restrictions, assessments, easements, and liens set forth in the Declaration. Notably, this definition does not include conditions set forth in the Design Guidelines.

4. What role does the Design Review Committee (DRC) play in landscape maintenance? The CC&Rs grant the Design Review Committee sole discretion over the manner in which Transitional Areas are maintained.

5. Why was the Respondent (the Association) denied its request for attorneys' fees despite being the prevailing party? The ALJ cited Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., which established that an administrative agency is not a "court," and therefore statutes allowing for attorneys' fees in court "actions" (like A.R.S. §12-341.01) do not apply to administrative proceedings. Additionally, the CC&Rs only authorized fees for the Association in "enforcement actions" against an owner, which this was not.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Distinction Between Maintenance Authority and Individual Restriction:

Analyze the ALJ's reasoning that the application of crushed rock was not a "restriction" or "condition" imposed on the Petitioner. In your essay, discuss how the ownership of the "Transitional Area" (Petitioner) versus the maintenance responsibility (Association) creates a legal distinction that impacted the discrimination claim.

  1. The Preponderance of the Evidence in Administrative Law:

Explain the burden of proof required in this case. Discuss why the Petitioner’s evidence regarding un-rocked common areas failed to meet the legal standard of proving discrimination under Article XII, Section 3 of the CC&Rs.

  1. The Integration of Governing Documents:

The decision notes that the "Declaration" incorporates "Design Guidelines" by reference, yet the definition of "Restrictions" excludes them. Evaluate how these overlapping documents—CC&Rs, Design Guidelines, and Site Development plans—interact to define the rights of a homeowner versus the authority of a Homeowners Association.

Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.A.C. R2-19-119: The administrative code defining the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) for the Petitioner.
  • Building Envelope: Often referred to as a "lot," this is the specific plot owned by a member of the community.
  • CC&Rs: The Amended and Restated Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; the primary governing document for the community.
  • Declaration: The specific legal document (and its amendments) that sets forth the covenants and restrictions for Casa Contenta.
  • Design Guidelines: Supplementary rules governing architectural and landscape plans; these give the Design Review Committee discretion over community aesthetics.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: A legal standard meaning the evidence is sufficient to persuade the judge that a proposition is "more likely true than not."
  • Restrictions: Specific mandates or limitations found within the CC&Rs (covenants, assessments, liens, etc.) that apply to all owners.
  • Transitional Area: A unique property category owned by the homeowner but maintained by the Association, serving as the visual buffer between private dwellings and common grounds.

The "Red Rock" Dispute: Understanding HOA Authority and Discrimination Claims

1. Introduction: When Landscaping Becomes a Legal Battle

In the high-desert landscape of Sedona, Arizona, a seemingly minor disagreement over ground cover evolved into a significant legal test of association power. The dispute began when the Casa Contenta Homeowners Association (HOA) applied crushed red rock to the areas surrounding the home of resident Chris Gelb. Gelb, objecting to the aesthetic and the localized application of the material, challenged the Association, arguing that because the rock was not immediately applied to every property in the subdivision, she was being unfairly singled out.

The dispute hinged on a critical distinction between an HOA's duty to maintain property and its power to impose restrictions on owners. The core question for the court was whether an HOA’s decision to perform maintenance in specific common or transitional areas constitutes legal discrimination if the same standard is not applied community-wide in a single, simultaneous stroke.

2. Definitions: Navigating the "Zones" of Property Ownership

A central theme in community law is that "ownership" does not always equate to "maintenance control." The Casa Contenta CC&Rs define four distinct areas of real property, establishing a complex hierarchy of rights and obligations.

Property Zone Legal Definition Ownership & Maintenance Governing Authority
The Dwelling Unit The internal living space within the walls of the home. Owned and maintained by the resident. Article V
The Building Envelope The specific plot owned by the resident where they may construct a dwelling (e.g., a 4,500 sq. ft. lot for a 3,100 sq. ft. home). Owned by the resident. Article I & V
The Transitional Area The area between the common area and the dwelling unit walls visible to others. Owned by the resident; maintained by the Association. Article V & VI
The Common Area All areas outside the building envelope lines. Owned and maintained by the Association. Article V & VI

Under Articles V and VI, the Association is mandated to maintain the landscaped portions of both Common and Transitional Areas. Crucially, Article VI, Section 4 grants the Design Review Committee "sole discretion" over the manner in which these areas are maintained, regardless of who holds the underlying title to the land.

3. The Petitioner’s Argument: The Equal Treatment Clause

The Petitioner, Chris Gelb, anchored her case on Article XII, Section 3 of the CC&Rs, the "Equal Treatment of Owners" provision. This clause requires that "restrictions" be applied to all owners without discrimination.

Gelb alleged that the Association breached this duty by:

  • Applying crushed red rock to the common and transitional areas adjacent to her home.
  • Failing to apply the same material to all other common and transitional areas throughout the subdivision at the same time.

It is important to note that Gelb also attempted to cite the "Restatement (3d) of Property" and Arizona corporate statutes (A.R.S. §10-3830 and §10-3842). However, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) dismissed these claims. Unlike a general civil court, the OAH is a specialized venue with jurisdiction limited strictly to violations of an Association’s governing documents or specific planned community statutes.

4. The Association’s Defense and the Court’s Findings

The Association argued that the application of crushed rock was a standard maintenance action performed at the Association’s own expense to ensure community conformity. While the HOA admitted that some areas had not yet received the rock, they testified that they were in a phased process of applying it throughout the community.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the discrimination claim, noting that in HOA disputes, boards are often granted "judicial deference" if they act within their authority. The "Aha!" moment in the ruling came from the legal definition of "Restrictions."

  • The Maintenance vs. Restriction Pivot: Under Article I, Section 25, "Restrictions" are defined as covenants, conditions, and assessments set forth in the Declaration. The ALJ found that applying ground cover is a maintenance action—not a restriction or condition imposed on the owner’s conduct or private property.
  • Property Control: Because the rock was applied to Common and Transitional areas—land the Association is legally obligated to care for—the HOA did not need the owner's permission.
  • The Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to show that a "restriction" was imposed on her. Because maintenance is not a restriction, the "Equal Treatment" clause (Article XII) simply did not apply to the landscaping schedule.
  • Uniformity is Not Instant: The court ruled that a lack of immediate, community-wide uniformity in landscaping does not constitute legal discrimination.
5. The Ruling on Costs: Why Fees Weren't Awarded

The final order denied the Petitioner a refund of the $550 filing fee, as she was not the prevailing party. More significantly for the community, the Association’s request for attorney’s fees was also denied, providing a vital lesson on the financial risks of administrative litigation.

The ALJ cited Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., which establishes that an administrative agency is not a "court." Therefore, Arizona statutes (like A.R.S. § 12-341.01) that allow for attorney’s fees in court "actions" do not apply to OAH proceedings. Furthermore, the ALJ noted that Article XII, Section 1 of the CC&Rs only allows the Association to recover fees in enforcement actions against an owner. Since the HOA was the defendant in this administrative challenge rather than the party bringing an enforcement action, it had no contractual right to fees.

6. Lessons for the Community

The "Red Rock" dispute offers four essential takeaways for homeowners and board members:

  1. Know Your Zones: Ownership of land (such as a Transitional Area) does not always grant a homeowner the right to control its appearance. Always distinguish between your "Building Envelope" and the areas the HOA is mandated to maintain.
  2. Discretion is Key: When CC&Rs grant "sole discretion" to a board or committee, that authority typically extends to both the materials used and the timing/phasing of the maintenance.
  3. Defining Discrimination: Legally, "discrimination" requires the unequal application of a restriction. Phased maintenance schedules or inconsistent landscaping across a community are rarely discriminatory if the HOA is acting within its maintenance authority and using its own funds.
  4. Administrative Limits: The OAH is a streamlined venue, but it has boundaries. It cannot enforce broad corporate statutes or Restatements of Law, and it generally cannot award attorney's fees. This makes it a cost-effective venue for merit-based disputes but a difficult place to recover legal expenses.
7. Final Summary Statement

Success in HOA disputes requires a precise understanding of whether a board’s action is a "maintenance duty" or a "restriction," as the legal protections for owners differ significantly between the two.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Chris Gelb (Petitioner)
    Casa Contenta subdivision
    Owner of record of lot 191
  • Frederick M. Aspey (Attorney for Petitioner)
    Aspey, Watkins & Diesel, P.L.L.C.

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (Attorney for Respondent)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado, & Wood, PLC

Neutral Parties

  • Michael G. Wales (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Received copy of decision
  • Debra Blake (Attention Recipient)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Received copy of decision

Kotrodimos, Leo & Nancy vs. The Estates at Desert Shadows

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H088015-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-06-16
Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Wales
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition based on the Petitioners' request to withdraw filed on or about April 2, 2008, and the Respondent's withdrawal of its request for attorney fees.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos Counsel —
Respondent The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc. Counsel Curtis S. Ekmark, Esq.; Eric J. Boyd, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Unknown

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition based on the Petitioners' request to withdraw filed on or about April 2, 2008, and the Respondent's withdrawal of its request for attorney fees.

Why this result: Petitioners withdrew their petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Unknown

Petitioners requested to withdraw their Petition.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed in its entirety upon the Petitioners' request to withdraw.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H088015-BFS Decision – 196775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:34:26 (57.6 KB)

08F-H088015-BFS Decision – 196775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:17 (57.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Dismissal of Case No. 08F-H088015-BFS

Executive Summary

This document provides a synthesis of the administrative order issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding the legal matter between Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos and The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.

The case concluded on June 16, 2008, with an “Order Dismissing Petition.” The dismissal was precipitated by the Petitioners’ voluntary request to withdraw their petition and a subsequent withdrawal of a request for attorney fees by the Respondent. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2198.04(A), this order constitutes a final administrative decision, precluding any further requests for rehearing.

Administrative Context and Case Identification

The proceedings were conducted under the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. The case details are summarized below:

Attribute

Detail

Case Number

08F-H088015-BFS (Reference No. HO 08-8/015)

Petitioners

Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos

Respondent

The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Michael G. Wales, Administrative Law Judge

Issuing Authority

Office of Administrative Hearings

Date of Order

June 16, 2008

Procedural Resolution

The dismissal of the petition was not the result of a summary judgment or a full evidentiary hearing on the merits, but rather a mutual cessation of claims.

Petition Withdrawal

The document indicates that the Petitioners, Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos, filed a request to withdraw their petition on or about April 2, 2008. The source context does not specify the underlying reasons for the Petitioners’ decision to withdraw.

Attorney Fees

Concurrent with the Petitioners’ withdrawal, the Respondent, The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc., withdrew its request for an award of attorney fees. This mutual withdrawal of claims and requests facilitated the clean dismissal of the case.

Judicial Ruling

Based on these filings, Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Wales ordered the dismissal of the petition against the Respondent in its entirety.

Legal Finality and Statutory Authority

The order emphasizes the finality of the administrative process in this matter. Under the authority of A.R.S. §41-2198.04(A), the document establishes the following:

• Finality: The order is designated as a “final administrative decision.”

• Rehearing Restriction: The decision is “not subject to a request for rehearing.”

Key Entities and Distribution

The order identified several key legal and administrative entities involved in the distribution of the final decision:

Legal Representation for Respondent

The Respondent was represented by the law firm Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC, specifically:

• Curtis S. Ekmark, Esq.

• Eric J. Boyd, Esq.

Regulatory Oversight

A copy of the order was directed to the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety – H/C, specifically to:

• Robert Barger, Director

• Debra Blake

Contact Information for Record

• Petitioners’ Address: 2234 N. Calle Largo, Mesa, Arizona 85207.

• Respondent’s Counsel Address: 6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85253.

• Office of Administrative Hearings Address: 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.

Study Guide: Kotrodimos v. The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal order issued by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding Case No. 08F-H088015-BFS. The document focuses on the administrative dismissal of a petition involving a community association and the finality of such decisions under Arizona law.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions using 2–3 sentences based on the information provided in the source context.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative case?

2. What was the specific action taken by the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 16, 2008?

3. What prompted the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the petition?

4. What did the Respondent agree to withdraw during these proceedings?

5. Under which specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) was this order issued?

6. What is the status of this order regarding its finality and potential for rehearing?

7. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located?

8. Who represented the Respondent in this matter?

9. Which state department and director were included in the mailing list for this order?

10. On what approximate date was the original petition filed?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative case? The Petitioners are Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos, residents of Mesa, Arizona. The Respondent is The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.

2. What was the specific action taken by the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 16, 2008? The Office issued an “Order Dismissing Petition,” effectively closing Case No. 08F-H088015-BFS. The order dismissed the petition against the Respondent in its entirety.

3. What prompted the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the petition? The dismissal was prompted by the Petitioners’ own request to withdraw their petition. The judge acted upon this request, which had been filed on or about April 2, 2008.

4. What did the Respondent agree to withdraw during these proceedings? The Respondent, The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc., withdrew its request for an award of attorney fees. This withdrawal occurred in conjunction with the Petitioners’ request to dismiss the case.

5. Under which specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) was this order issued? The order cites A.R.S. §41-2198.04(A) as the governing authority for the decision. This statute establishes the order as a final administrative decision.

6. What is the status of this order regarding its finality and potential for rehearing? The order is considered a final administrative decision. Per the cited statute, it is explicitly not subject to a request for rehearing.

7. Where is the Office of Administrative Hearings located? The office is located in Phoenix, Arizona. Specifically, the address provided is 1400 West Washington, Suite 101, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

8. Who represented the Respondent in this matter? The Respondent was represented by attorneys Curtis S. Ekmark and Eric J. Boyd. They are associated with the firm Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC, located in Scottsdale, Arizona.

9. Which state department and director were included in the mailing list for this order? Robert Barger, the Director of the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety, was included on the mailing list. The notice was specifically directed to the attention of Debra Blake within that department.

10. On what approximate date was the original petition filed? According to the order, the Petitioners filed their request to withdraw the petition on or about April 2, 2008. The source indicates that the dismissal was pursuant to this specific filing date.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).

1. The Role of Consent in Administrative Dismissals: Analyze how the mutual withdrawals (the petition by the Kotrodimos and the attorney fees by the Association) influenced the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to dismiss the case in its entirety.

2. Statutory Finality in Arizona Law: Discuss the implications of A.R.S. §41-2198.04(A) on the legal rights of the parties involved. Why might a legislative framework forbid a request for rehearing in an administrative context?

3. Procedural Responsibilities of the Office of Administrative Hearings: Based on the “Order Dismissing Petition,” describe the formal requirements for documenting and communicating a final administrative decision to all involved parties.

4. Community Association Disputes: Using this case as a template, explore the typical structure of a legal dispute between homeowners and a community association within the Arizona administrative system.

5. The Function of the Administrative Law Judge: Evaluate the role of Michael G. Wales in this proceeding. How does his authority manifest in the closing of a case where the parties have reached a mutual cessation of claims?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. §41-2198.04(A)

The specific Arizona Revised Statute that governs the finality of administrative decisions in this context, making them exempt from rehearing requests.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official (in this case, Michael G. Wales) who hears and decides cases within an administrative agency.

Attorney Fees

Legal costs requested by a party to cover their representation; in this case, the Respondent withdrew their request for these fees.

Community Association

A legal entity (The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.) responsible for managing a specific residential development.

Department of Fire Building and Life Safety

The state agency involved in the oversight of the matter, represented by Director Robert Barger in the distribution list.

Dismissal

A formal order by the judge to end a legal proceeding without further trial or hearing.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The Arizona state office responsible for conducting independent hearings for various state agencies.

Petition

The formal written document filed by the Kotrodimos (Petitioners) to initiate the legal grievance.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or legal proceeding (Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos).

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action is brought (The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc.).

Withdrawal

The voluntary removal of a claim or request by a party in a legal case.

The Negotiated Exit: Why a Strategic Withdrawal Can Be the Ultimate Win in HOA Litigation

1. Introduction: The Quiet End to a Loud Dispute

In the high-stakes world of community association law, disputes often begin with a roar and end in a fiscal graveyard. Homeowners and Community Associations (HOAs) frequently find themselves locked in a cycle of escalating grievances and mounting legal invoices that threaten to eclipse the original dispute. We often expect these battles to conclude with a gavel-strike—a definitive “winner” and “loser.”

However, a masterclass in litigation avoidance can be found in a case heard within the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety context. On June 16, 2008, in the sterile environment of the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona, the matter of Leo and Nancy Kotrodimos vs. The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc. (Case No. 08F-H088015-BFS) reached its conclusion. It didn’t end with a judgment, but with a strategic retreat that offers profound lessons for any board member or homeowner currently in the trenches.

2. The Power of the Voluntary Withdrawal

The legal machinery ground to a halt not because of a trial, but because of a choice.

The Petitioners, the Kotrodimos family, elected to withdraw their petition originally filed on April 2, 2008.

In administrative law, a voluntary withdrawal is more than a surrender; it is a pivot.

It suggests an “off-ramp” strategy—a realization that the administrative costs may soon outweigh the potential recovery.

By stepping away, the parties bypass the volatility of a judicial ruling and reclaim control over the narrative.

Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Wales formalized this strategic exit, using the internal reference Case No. HO 08-8/015 to issue the directive:

3.The Strategic Trade-Off: Attorney Fees as a Bargaining Chip

While the withdrawal of the petition was the primary move, the “negotiated exit” was secured by a crucial quid pro quo. The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc. concurrently withdrew its request for an award of attorney fees.

In the ecosystem of HOA disputes, attorney fees are often the “poison pill” that prevents resolution. Parties frequently continue litigating simply because they cannot afford the risk of losing and being saddled with the opponent’s legal bills. By both sides backing down simultaneously, they neutralized the financial standoff. This mutual dismissal created a clean slate, allowing the association and the homeowners to walk away without the lingering sting of a secondary financial battle.

4.The Finality of the “Final Administrative Decision”

The Order signed by Judge Wales on June 16, 2008, carried a weight that many laypeople might overlook. It was not a temporary stay; it was a permanent seal. Under A.R.S. §41-2198.04(A), this dismissal is classified as a “final administrative decision.”

This “no-turning-back” clause is a critical component of strategic resolution. Because the decision is final and not subject to a request for rehearing, it provides the one thing that litigation rarely offers: absolute certainty. For The Estates at Desert Shadows Community Association, Inc. and the Kotrodimos family, the signing of this order meant the dispute was legally dead, with no opportunity for revival in that forum.

5. Conclusion: A Lesson in Resolution

The resolution of the Kotrodimos case serves as a poignant reminder that in the Office of Administrative Hearings, a “win” isn’t always defined by a favorable verdict. Sometimes, the most sophisticated legal move is to orchestrate a mutual exit that preserves resources and restores peace to the community.

When we strip away the filings and the procedural posturing, we are left with a fundamental question: Is the true victory found in the fight itself, or in the wisdom to secure a clean, final exit before the costs of “winning” become too high to pay?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Leo Kotrodimos (petitioner)
  • Nancy Kotrodimos (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Curtis S. Ekmark (attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Eric J. Boyd (attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, LLC
    Attorney for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Michael G. Wales (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Copy recipient
  • Debra Blake (agency staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Copy recipient

Sawyer, Mike vs. Terramar Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H088013-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-06-13
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the recall petition contained sufficient signatures (305 out of 1550 members) to trigger an election under A.R.S. § 33-1813. The HOA's defenses regarding the validity of the signatures were rejected because they offered no actual proof of the alleged defects (e.g., forgeries, ineligible signers) aside from hearsay regarding one individual.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Mike Sawyer Counsel —
Respondent Terramar Homeowners Association Counsel R. Corey Hill

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1813

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the recall petition contained sufficient signatures (305 out of 1550 members) to trigger an election under A.R.S. § 33-1813. The HOA's defenses regarding the validity of the signatures were rejected because they offered no actual proof of the alleged defects (e.g., forgeries, ineligible signers) aside from hearsay regarding one individual.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold recall election

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated statutes by failing to conduct a recall election upon receipt of a petition signed by more than 10% of the members. The HOA argued the petition was defective due to forged signatures, lack of solicitor verification, and other procedural issues but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support these affirmative defenses.

Orders: The HOA is ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1813 by holding a recall election for the four named board members within 30 days and to refund the Petitioner's $550.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1813
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198
  • A.R.S. § 16-315

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H088013-BFS Decision – 192785.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:34:18 (100.7 KB)

08F-H088013-BFS Decision – 192785.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:22:50 (100.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Sawyer v. Terramar Homeowners Association (No. 08F-H088013-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive synthesis of the administrative hearing decision regarding the dispute between Petitioner Mike Sawyer and Respondent Terramar Homeowners Association (HOA). The central issue was the HOA’s failure to conduct a recall election for four board members despite receiving a petition signed by over 10% of the membership.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of Mike Sawyer, finding that the HOA failed to provide evidence supporting its claims that the petition was legally or procedurally defective. Consequently, the HOA was ordered to hold the recall election within 30 days and reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.

Case Overview

• Petitioner: Mike Sawyer

• Respondent: Terramar Homeowners Association

• Targeted Board Members: Ben Dass, Don Flickinger, Keith Miller, and David Mosienko.

• Primary Allegation: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 by refusing to hold a recall election after being presented with a valid petition.

Arguments and Affirmative Defenses

The HOA contended that the petition was invalid based on several alleged procedural and legal defects. Their defense relied on both specific allegations and broader public policy arguments.

Alleged Petition Defects

The HOA asserted the following issues rendered the signatures invalid:

• Solicitation Issues: Failure to identify those soliciting signatures and failure to verify that solicitors were HOA residents.

• Petitioner Identity: Failure to properly identify the petitioner.

• Signatory Eligibility: Inclusion of signatures from renters, homeowners ineligible to vote (due to CC&R violations), and signatures that appeared to be forged.

• Physical Evidence: Claims that some street names were misspelled and that multiple entries appeared to be written in the same hand or the same ink color.

Public Policy Defense

The HOA argued that, as a matter of public policy, the petition should conform to state election laws found in A.R.S. Title 16.

Evidence and Testimony Analysis

The tribunal examined the validity of the petition through testimony from both parties and a review of the physical evidence.

Quantitative Analysis of the Petition

• Total Membership: Approximately 1,550 members.

• Statutory Requirement: A.R.S. § 33-1813 requires a petition signed by at least 10% of the members (approximately 155 signatures) to trigger a recall.

• Petition Count: The submitted petition contained 305 signatures, nearly double the required threshold.

Witness Testimonies

• Mike Sawyer (Petitioner): Testified that he was a homeowner who signed and solicited signatures. He admitted he did not sign the pages he solicited because he did not believe it was a requirement.

• Ben Dass (HOA President): Testified that the HOA hired an independent lawyer with private funds to investigate the petition. He claimed to have spoken with renters and individuals who denied signing, though he provided no specific details or counts of these instances.

• Dr. Keith Miller (HOA Board Member): Expressed suspicion over misspelled street names and ink colors. While he alleged many signatures were invalid due to CC&R violations, he provided no supporting details or specific names. Notably, he had previously testified in a different court that there were 180 valid signatures, a statement he dismissed at this hearing as “guessing.”

• Rick Card (Rebuttal Witness): Contradicted the HOA’s claim regarding a specific signatory, Lawrence “Hap” Flayter. While the HOA provided a letter from Mr. Flayter stating he did not recall signing, Mr. Card testified that he personally witnessed Mr. Flayter sign the petition.

Legal Conclusions

The ALJ’s decision was based on the application of Arizona statutes and the failure of the HOA to meet its burden of proof regarding its affirmative defenses.

Application of Law

1. Jurisdiction: The Office of Administrative Hearings has the authority to determine if a planned community violated A.R.S. Title 33.

2. Burden of Proof: The HOA bore the burden of proving its affirmative defenses regarding the petition’s defects. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.”

3. Inapplicability of Title 16: The ALJ rejected the HOA’s public policy argument, noting there was no evidence that the HOA’s governing documents (Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, or CC&Rs) required petitions to conform to state election laws (Title 16).

Findings on Credibility and Evidence

• Lack of Specificity: The HOA failed to provide the names or the specific number of signatures they believed were forged or invalid.

• Suspect Credibility: Dr. Miller’s testimony was deemed suspect because he based his suspicions on ink colors and handwriting while simultaneously admitting he had only seen copies, not the original petition.

• Hearsay: The letter and hearsay testimony regarding Mr. Flayter were given “no appreciable weight” because he did not testify and was not subject to cross-examination.

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Mike Sawyer sustained his burden of proof and was the prevailing party. The following orders were issued:

• Recall Election: Terramar HOA must comply with A.R.S. § 33-1813 and hold a recall election for board members Ben Dass, Don Flickinger, Keith Miller, and David Mosienko within 30 days of the effective date of the order (June 13, 2008).

• Financial Restitution: Terramar HOA must pay Mike Sawyer $550.00 for his filing fee within 30 days.

• Finality: This order constitutes the final administrative decision and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.

Study Guide: Sawyer v. Terramar Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between Mike Sawyer and the Terramar Homeowners Association. It examines the legal requirements for homeowner association (HOA) recall elections, the burden of proof in administrative hearings, and the specific findings of fact that led to the judicial order.

Part 1: Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions based on the provided administrative decision. Each answer should be between two and three sentences.

1. What was the central allegation made by the petitioner, Mike Sawyer, against the Terramar Homeowners Association?

2. Which specific individuals were the targets of the recall petition submitted by the homeowners?

3. What procedural and legal defects did the HOA allege rendered the petition invalid in its initial response?

4. How did the HOA attempt to use A.R.S. Title 16 to defend its decision not to hold the election?

5. Why did HOA President Ben Dass use private funds rather than HOA funds to hire an independent lawyer for handwriting analysis?

6. What was the nature of the dispute regarding Lawrence “Hap” Flayter’s signature on the petition?

7. What specific suspicions did Dr. Keith Miller raise regarding the physical appearance of the petition pages?

8. According to the Conclusions of Law, what is the specific jurisdictional limit of the Office of Administrative Hearings in disputes involving planned communities?

9. How did the Administrative Law Judge determine that the petition met the statutory threshold for a recall election?

10. What were the three specific requirements mandated by the Administrative Law Judge’s final order?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Mike Sawyer alleged that the Terramar Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 by failing to hold a recall election for four board members after being presented with a valid petition. He filed this petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on March 27, 2008.

2. The petition specifically called for the removal of board members Ben Dass, Don Flickinger, Keith Miller, and David Mosienko. These individuals were identified in the petition as the subjects of the requested recall election.

3. The HOA claimed the petition failed to identify those soliciting signatures or verify they were residents, and failed to identify the petitioner. Additionally, they alleged the petition included invalid signatures from renters, signatures from homeowners ineligible to vote, and forged signatures.

4. The HOA asserted that public policy, as supported by the election laws in A.R.S. Title 16, should be applied to the petition process. However, the Judge ruled Title 16 was inapplicable because the HOA’s governing documents did not require petitions to conform to state election laws.

5. Ben Dass hired an independent lawyer with private funds because he wanted to avoid potential allegations of misusing HOA funds. This lawyer was retained to oversee a handwriting analysis of the signatures on the petition.

6. The HOA provided a letter from Mr. Flayter stating he did not recall signing the petition and did not want to be included. In contrast, witness Rick Card provided rebuttal testimony claiming he personally saw Mr. Flayter sign the document.

7. Dr. Miller testified that he was suspicious because some street names were misspelled and several entries appeared to be written by the same hand. He also noted that many signatures were written in the same color of ink, though he admitted he had only viewed copies of the petition.

8. The Office of Administrative Hearings has limited jurisdiction to determine if a homeowners association violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16, or the association’s specific governing documents. These documents include the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & Rs).

9. The Judge found that the petition contained 305 signatures, which exceeded the 10% requirement for a recall election under A.R.S. § 33-1813. This calculation was based on Dr. Miller’s testimony that there are approximately 1,550 members in the HOA.

10. The order required that Mike Sawyer be deemed the prevailing party and that the HOA must hold a recall election for the four specified board members within 30 days. Furthermore, the HOA was ordered to reimburse Sawyer for his $550.00 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case facts and legal principles described in the source text to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Burden of Proof and Affirmative Defenses: Analyze the role of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. How did the HOA’s failure to provide specific details—such as the names of allegedly forged signatures or the number of ineligible voters—impact the Judge’s ruling on their affirmative defenses?

2. Credibility of Testimony: Evaluate the Judge’s assessment of witness credibility, specifically regarding Dr. Keith Miller and Ben Dass. Why was Dr. Miller’s testimony about the color of the ink on the petition used to undermine his overall credibility?

3. Hearsay and Evidence Weight: Discuss why the letter from Lawrence “Hap” Flayter and the hearsay testimony regarding his signature were given “no appreciable weight” by the Administrative Law Judge. Compare this to the weight given to the live, cross-examined testimony of Rick Card.

4. Statutory Interpretation vs. Public Policy: The Respondent argued that A.R.S. Title 16 (Election Laws) should apply to HOA recall petitions based on public policy. Explain the Judge’s reasoning for rejecting this argument and why the HOA’s own governing documents are the primary authority in such matters.

5. Administrative Remedies and Enforcement: Examine the final orders issued by the ALJ. What is the significance of the 30-day timeline, the reimbursement of the filing fee, and the statement that the order is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1813

The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the process and requirements for the removal of board members in a planned community.

A.R.S. § 41-2198

The statutory authority that allows the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct evidentiary hearings in disputes between members and planned communities.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over an administrative hearing, evaluates evidence and testimony, and issues a decision and order.

Affirmative Defense

A fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the petitioner which, if proven by the respondent, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the respondent’s otherwise unlawful conduct.

CC & Rs

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that outline the rules and limitations for property owners within a planned community.

Hearsay

An out-of-court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted; in this case, the judge gave such evidence little weight because the declarant was not subject to cross-examination.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or appeal; in this case, Mike Sawyer.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning that the claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Prevailing Party

The party in a lawsuit who successfully wins the case or obtains the relief sought; here, the Petitioner.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Terramar Homeowners Association.

Study Guide: Sawyer v. Terramar Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between Mike Sawyer and the Terramar Homeowners Association. It examines the legal requirements for homeowner association (HOA) recall elections, the burden of proof in administrative hearings, and the specific findings of fact that led to the judicial order.

Part 1: Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions based on the provided administrative decision. Each answer should be between two and three sentences.

1. What was the central allegation made by the petitioner, Mike Sawyer, against the Terramar Homeowners Association?

2. Which specific individuals were the targets of the recall petition submitted by the homeowners?

3. What procedural and legal defects did the HOA allege rendered the petition invalid in its initial response?

4. How did the HOA attempt to use A.R.S. Title 16 to defend its decision not to hold the election?

5. Why did HOA President Ben Dass use private funds rather than HOA funds to hire an independent lawyer for handwriting analysis?

6. What was the nature of the dispute regarding Lawrence “Hap” Flayter’s signature on the petition?

7. What specific suspicions did Dr. Keith Miller raise regarding the physical appearance of the petition pages?

8. According to the Conclusions of Law, what is the specific jurisdictional limit of the Office of Administrative Hearings in disputes involving planned communities?

9. How did the Administrative Law Judge determine that the petition met the statutory threshold for a recall election?

10. What were the three specific requirements mandated by the Administrative Law Judge’s final order?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Mike Sawyer alleged that the Terramar Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 by failing to hold a recall election for four board members after being presented with a valid petition. He filed this petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on March 27, 2008.

2. The petition specifically called for the removal of board members Ben Dass, Don Flickinger, Keith Miller, and David Mosienko. These individuals were identified in the petition as the subjects of the requested recall election.

3. The HOA claimed the petition failed to identify those soliciting signatures or verify they were residents, and failed to identify the petitioner. Additionally, they alleged the petition included invalid signatures from renters, signatures from homeowners ineligible to vote, and forged signatures.

4. The HOA asserted that public policy, as supported by the election laws in A.R.S. Title 16, should be applied to the petition process. However, the Judge ruled Title 16 was inapplicable because the HOA’s governing documents did not require petitions to conform to state election laws.

5. Ben Dass hired an independent lawyer with private funds because he wanted to avoid potential allegations of misusing HOA funds. This lawyer was retained to oversee a handwriting analysis of the signatures on the petition.

6. The HOA provided a letter from Mr. Flayter stating he did not recall signing the petition and did not want to be included. In contrast, witness Rick Card provided rebuttal testimony claiming he personally saw Mr. Flayter sign the document.

7. Dr. Miller testified that he was suspicious because some street names were misspelled and several entries appeared to be written by the same hand. He also noted that many signatures were written in the same color of ink, though he admitted he had only viewed copies of the petition.

8. The Office of Administrative Hearings has limited jurisdiction to determine if a homeowners association violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16, or the association’s specific governing documents. These documents include the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & Rs).

9. The Judge found that the petition contained 305 signatures, which exceeded the 10% requirement for a recall election under A.R.S. § 33-1813. This calculation was based on Dr. Miller’s testimony that there are approximately 1,550 members in the HOA.

10. The order required that Mike Sawyer be deemed the prevailing party and that the HOA must hold a recall election for the four specified board members within 30 days. Furthermore, the HOA was ordered to reimburse Sawyer for his $550.00 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case facts and legal principles described in the source text to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Burden of Proof and Affirmative Defenses: Analyze the role of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. How did the HOA’s failure to provide specific details—such as the names of allegedly forged signatures or the number of ineligible voters—impact the Judge’s ruling on their affirmative defenses?

2. Credibility of Testimony: Evaluate the Judge’s assessment of witness credibility, specifically regarding Dr. Keith Miller and Ben Dass. Why was Dr. Miller’s testimony about the color of the ink on the petition used to undermine his overall credibility?

3. Hearsay and Evidence Weight: Discuss why the letter from Lawrence “Hap” Flayter and the hearsay testimony regarding his signature were given “no appreciable weight” by the Administrative Law Judge. Compare this to the weight given to the live, cross-examined testimony of Rick Card.

4. Statutory Interpretation vs. Public Policy: The Respondent argued that A.R.S. Title 16 (Election Laws) should apply to HOA recall petitions based on public policy. Explain the Judge’s reasoning for rejecting this argument and why the HOA’s own governing documents are the primary authority in such matters.

5. Administrative Remedies and Enforcement: Examine the final orders issued by the ALJ. What is the significance of the 30-day timeline, the reimbursement of the filing fee, and the statement that the order is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1813

The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the process and requirements for the removal of board members in a planned community.

A.R.S. § 41-2198

The statutory authority that allows the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct evidentiary hearings in disputes between members and planned communities.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over an administrative hearing, evaluates evidence and testimony, and issues a decision and order.

Affirmative Defense

A fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the petitioner which, if proven by the respondent, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the respondent’s otherwise unlawful conduct.

CC & Rs

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that outline the rules and limitations for property owners within a planned community.

Hearsay

An out-of-court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted; in this case, the judge gave such evidence little weight because the declarant was not subject to cross-examination.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or appeal; in this case, Mike Sawyer.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning that the claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Prevailing Party

The party in a lawsuit who successfully wins the case or obtains the relief sought; here, the Petitioner.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Terramar Homeowners Association.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mike Sawyer (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; homeowner
  • Rick Card (witness)
    Solicited signatures on the petition

Respondent Side

  • R. Corey Hill (attorney)
    The Cavanaugh Law Firm, P.A.
    Attorney for Terramar Homeowners Association
  • Ben Dass (board member)
    Terramar Homeowners Association
    President of the board; witness
  • Keith Miller (board member)
    Terramar Homeowners Association
    Witness
  • Don Flickinger (board member)
    Terramar Homeowners Association
    Subject to recall
  • David Mosienko (board member)
    Terramar Homeowners Association
    Subject to recall

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Lawrence Flayter (resident)
    Also referred to as Hap Flayter; signed letter stating he did not sign petition
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing list
  • Debra Blake (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing list